One Live View Uncovers a Hidden Fee Gap and a Slipping Subject in a Single Term
A trust running twelve schools across two states reviewed performance from twelve separately formatted spreadsheets, each closed weeks apart. At group level the numbers looked healthy, but leadership suspected that strength in the larger campuses was masking trouble in the smaller ones. They could neither prove it nor act on it in time, because by the time figures were reconciled the term was effectively over.
- Mapped every campus onto one data model so fee demand, collection, dues, attendance and examination results could be read on a common basis rather than reconciled by hand.
- Surfaced group totals alongside per-campus figures in a single live workspace, with drill-down from trust to branch to class to individual student.
- Set internal benchmarks for collection efficiency and subject-wise averages so any campus drifting from the group standard stood out on sight rather than at year-end.
- Established a term-cycle review rhythm with central finance and academic teams working from the same dashboard instead of emailed files.
- ~9%Hidden fee gap surfaced
- 1 termDown from a full year
- 12 → 1Spreadsheets to one view
- Branch A
- Branch B
- Branch C
| Before | With Profmax | |
|---|---|---|
| Campus view | 12 separate spreadsheets | One live workspace |
| Small-campus fee gap | Masked in group average | Surfaced at ~9% |
| Slipping subject | Found at year-end | Caught mid-term |
| Time to act | Next academic year | Same term |





