Home › For institutions
Accreditation is a documentation discipline.
Thirty-three institutions across seven states have taken us through an accreditation or ranking cycle since 2015 — in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. We do not publish their names, and we will not publish yours. Accreditation work is confidential, and an institution that lists its clients is telling you exactly how it treats confidentiality.
The framework you prepared for has changed. NAAC has moved from the CGPA grading system to binary accreditation — Accredited or Not Accredited — followed by Maturity Based Graded Levels for institutions that go further. Assessment is far more data-driven, and your submission has to reconcile against AISHE, UDISE+ and NIRF rather than stand on its own. Documentation built for the old criteria structure does not port across cleanly. If your cycle falls within the next eighteen months, a gap audit against the current framework is the honest first step — and it is cheap compared with getting it wrong.
Where institutions actually lose marks
Almost never on quality of teaching. Nearly always on evidence. In the files we are handed, the same five failures recur:
- Data that was never collected. The activity happened; nobody recorded it in a form that survives scrutiny three years later.
- Outcomes never computed. CO–PO attainment exists as a claim rather than a calculation, and falls apart the moment anyone asks for the working.
- Numbers that disagree with each other. The figure in the SSR does not match AISHE, which does not match the NIRF submission, which does not match the website.
- Claims without artefacts. Every assertion needs a document behind it, dated, signed and locatable in under a minute.
- An IQAC that activates once a cycle. The new framework assumes continuous data capture. Retrospective assembly is now visible.
What we do
Binary accreditation and MBGL
- Gap audit against the current framework
- IIQA and SSR preparation, criterion by criterion
- Metric evidence mapping, qualitative and quantitative
- Cross-reconciliation with AISHE, UDISE+ and NIRF
- DVV clarification handling
- Peer team visit readiness and mock review
Programme accreditation
- Self Assessment Report preparation
- Outcome-based education framework and CO–PO mapping
- Attainment computation and closing the loop
- Faculty and laboratory documentation
- Pre-visit gap audit
Ranking readiness
- Parameter-wise data audit and gap analysis
- Teaching, learning and resources data preparation
- Research and professional practice metrics
- Graduation outcomes and outreach data
- Year-on-year improvement planning
IQAC and continuous data capture
- IQAC process design and calendar
- AQAR discipline and year-round evidence capture
- Data ownership: who records what, when
- Templates your staff will actually use
Faculty development
- Outcome-based education workshops
- Assessment design and rubric writing
- Research methodology and publication ethics
- Financial modelling for commerce and management faculty
Value-added employability courses
- Financial modelling for B.Com, BBA and MBA cohorts
- Capital markets literacy as a compliant awareness programme
- 30 or 45 hours, inside your timetable, online or on campus
- Attendance, assessment and outcome records in submission-ready format
- Evidence that feeds curricular enrichment and employability criteria
How we price it
Against a written scope, before you commit to anything. A large consulting firm running an equivalent higher-education engagement is typically working at four to six times our fee, largely because you are paying for a brand, a partner’s time you will rarely see, and a team that has to be flown in. Our engagements are quoted as a fixed fee for a defined deliverable, and the person who scopes the work is the person who does it.
We will tell you in the first call if we think you do not need us, or need less than you asked for. That conversation costs nothing and it is the fastest way to find out whether this is worth pursuing.
How we work
- Diagnosis before proposal. We look at what you have before we tell you what it will cost.
- We build the system, then the submission. A file that scores once and cannot be maintained has cost you money, not saved it.
- Your staff are trained, not bypassed. If the knowledge leaves with us, you will be paying someone again next cycle.
- We will not fabricate evidence. If an activity did not happen, it does not go in the file. This is not a moral flourish; institutions get caught, and the consequences land on you, not on the consultant.
- Confidentiality is absolute. No names, no logos, no case studies without written permission.
Common questions
Can you guarantee we will be accredited?
No, and any consultant who guarantees it is either lying or planning to fabricate something. We can substantially improve the quality and defensibility of your submission, and tell you honestly where you stand before you spend money.
We are mid-cycle with another consultant. Can you help?
Often, yes — usually as a review rather than a rebuild. Bring us the current file and we will tell you whether it is sound.
Do you work on site?
Yes. Most of the work is done online, but scoping, mock reviews and peer-team readiness are better in person, and we travel for those.
How far ahead should we start?
For a first cycle, twelve to eighteen months. For re-accreditation, nine to twelve. For a gap audit alone, any time — earlier is simply cheaper.