Blog · Forecast and pipeline · Education
The ten questions the chief executive of an education provider puts to the sales and success teams, which institutions renew in six months with low utilization, which cohort stalled, which trusts and districts are counted as ten schools, what did the price uplift realize, which programs fit which institutions, which entities have gone silent before the academic year, which account managers hold a price, what is the pipeline against the year's target, which institutions are over their seats, and what changed, each with the table from the license register, the usage export and the orders, and the answer to send back.
An education provider CEO asks the sales and success teams about renewals and hears a percentage over institutions. The license register, the usage export and the orders hold the entity view, the utilization and the cohorts as tables. This guide is the ten questions, the tables, and the answer to send back.
| # | The question | The table | Identity | Send back |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Which institutions renew soon with low utilization? | License utilization and trend; renewals inside six months | Active ≤ purchased | Renewal dates |
| 2 | Which cohort stalled? | Purchase cohort: retention, programs now vs year one | Cohorts sum to the base | Renewal rate |
| 3 | Which trusts are counted as ten schools? | Contracting-entity roll-up; probable duplicates | One entity per site | Institution counts |
| 4 | What did the price uplift realize? | Uplift realized vs proposed by institution, type and manager | Every renewal has a proposal | Average uplift |
| 5 | Which programs fit which institutions? | Program fit against the entity-type norm | Orders sum to entities | Program sales totals |
| 6 | Which entities have gone silent before the year? | Season watch against the academic calendar | Entities in one state | Contact counts |
| 7 | Which account managers hold a price? | Uplift realization per manager | Same as 4 | Manager revenue |
| 8 | What is the pipeline against the year? | Renewals due by utilization band, at historical renewal rate, plus new | Weighted renewals sum | Renewals as certain |
| 9 | Which institutions are over their seats? | Active over purchased; expansion value | Same as 1 | Seat counts |
| 10 | What changed? | The movements page | Every line cites | Narrative |
CEO: Which institutions renew soon with low utilization? Response: Institution 2207: 21 percent from 48 last year, renews in March, $18,000. Retention list, row 1. Table 1. CEO: Is that one school or a trust? Response: Oakfield Trust, twelve sites, one March renewal at $41,000 once rolled up; the CRM had it as twelve. Utilization across the sites is 21 percent and the intervention program is missing at all twelve. Tables 3 and 5. CEO: And the cohort? Response: 2023: retained at 72 percent like its neighbors and still holding 1.3 programs two years on, against 2.6 to 3.1 for the earlier cohorts. Something changed in 2023's onboarding. Table 2.
Three tables, one trust, one cohort, one term to act.
Renewal rate over institutions. Twelve renewals where there is one.
Usage not joined to the register. The product team has usage; the renewal team has dates.
Uplift averaged. Four percent, made of seven and nothing.
Cohorts unread. The stalled year invisible in the average.
Covirage produces the ten tables from the license register, the usage export, the orders and the institution master, with the entity roll-up first. The education page describes the setup, and the license utilization guide covers the first table.
Renewals inside six months with low utilization, because it has a date and a lever. An institution at a third of its seats that renews in March can be onboarded in the autumn term; the same institution discovered in February renews at a discount or not at all.
Because a trust of twelve academies counted as twelve institutions shows eleven renewals nobody is working and a program fit measured twelve times against twelve partial pictures. The renewal decision is made at the trust, and every table is computed there with the schools as a dimension.
Revenue sums to entities and to sites; active seats never exceed purchased; every renewal has a proposal and an outcome; every institution maps to exactly one entity on any date. A renewal rate computed over institutions rather than entities is sent back.