Illustrative work product · Open access
From a campus idea to an investment decision.
A sample of how we compare alternatives, expose the evidence gaps and recommend a sequence of decisions.
Fictional teaching example. This is not a client case, valuation, investment offering or finding about any named college. All conditions below are assumptions created to demonstrate the method.
The question
A regional college is considering an underused building and a surface parking area near its campus edge. Its leadership wants to strengthen institutional finances, improve connections with employers and support a more active neighborhood.
For this example, assume ownership is clear but building condition, housing demand, replacement parking requirements and partner interest remain untested. There is no approved development program and no committed capital.
Decision: should the college invest in a public learning program, advance a housing partnership, or pursue both through a phased district strategy?
Three scenarios
| Scenario | Potential value | Critical uncertainty | Decision gate |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Learning and employer program in existing space | Tests participation and employer demand with limited fixed commitments. | Will users return and will sponsors cover full delivery costs? | Agreed pilot scope, safe usable space, supervision and a funded operating budget. |
| B. Housing partnership on the parking area | Could create homes and institutional income while connecting campus and neighborhood. | Is the site developable, is demand sufficient, and do costs support acceptable terms? | Site constraints, access, parking needs, market study and a preliminary financial appraisal. |
| C. Phased learning and housing district | Could coordinate several uses and shared infrastructure around a wider institutional objective. | Does coordination add enough value to justify complexity and longer commitments? | Institutional mandate, credible partners, infrastructure responsibilities and a phased funding plan. |
Illustrative recommendation
Advance a bounded test of Scenario A and commission the essential feasibility work for Scenario B. Keep Scenario C as an option. On these assumed facts, a comprehensive district commitment would be premature.
The two investigations answer different questions. The program tests who will use and pay for the service. Housing feasibility tests what the site can support. Neither result should be assumed to validate the other.
What would change the recommendation?
- If no sponsors will fund repeat programming, stop or redesign the operating offer.
- If site conditions or development economics invalidate housing, revise the site strategy before further design expenditure.
- If both opportunities prove credible and share a meaningful infrastructure dependency, evaluate a coordinated delivery structure.
Five priorities, with reasons
| Priority | Why it comes here | Required output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Institutional mandate | Every later decision depends on objectives and authority. | Written decision brief: goals, boundaries, sponsor and approval route. |
| 2. Employer and learner demand test | Prevents a new service being built around assumed participation. | Interview evidence, proposed uses and credible sponsor commitments. |
| 3. Site and housing feasibility | Tests the largest physical and financial uncertainties. | Constraints review, demand assessment and preliminary economics. |
| 4. Small learning pilot | Creates evidence of use before long-term premises commitments. | Funded delivery plan and a defined review of outcomes and costs. |
| 5. Partner selection strategy | Should follow clarity about the project and institutional objectives. | Partner requirements, proposed responsibilities and a route to selection. |
The capital questions
A financial assessment would show construction or refurbishment costs, professional fees, contingency, operating costs and working capital separately. It would identify who contributes land or buildings and how that contribution is valued.
It would then test the sources of support: rents or other project income, institutional resources, partner capital and any eligible public or philanthropic funding. No source should be treated as committed merely because it is conceivable.
For housing, the committee would need base and downside cases covering delivery costs, achievable rents, occupancy, financing and institutional obligations. For the learning program, it would need participation, sponsor income, staffing and premises costs. This sample assigns no invented rents, returns or funding commitments.
A conditional 24-month agenda
| Period | Work | Decision before proceeding |
|---|---|---|
| Months 1–3 | Agree mandate; test demand; investigate site constraints. | Is there sufficient evidence to fund a pilot and further feasibility? |
| Months 4–6 | Run the bounded pilot; complete initial housing and operating appraisals. | Which option merits partner discussions and more detailed work? |
| Months 7–12 | Develop the selected option, responsibilities and approval route. | Are institutional terms, funding prospects and delivery risks acceptable? |
| Months 13–24 | Seek necessary approvals and commitments; implement only where ready. | Proceed, revise or stop against the agreed evidence and conditions. |
These are illustrative decision windows, not a construction or approval promise.
Apply the method to your decision
What would your three scenarios be?
A real diagnostic starts with your institution, assets, evidence and decision-makers. The result is a recommendation about what to do next and what must be established first.