Regus, 8th Floor, Kondapur · Hyderabad 500084
info@aifatechglobal.com Mon–Fri · 09:30–18:30 IST
Now taking new engagements worldwide

Most enterprises don't have a data problem.
They have a decision problem.

AIFATECH builds the pipelines, models and automation that turn scattered enterprise data into decisions people actually act on — governed, monitored, and measured against a number you agreed to upfront.

WE BUILD: DATA PLATFORMS
No slide deck. We look at one real process and tell you if it's worth automating.
Ops Intelligence · Live view STREAMING
Forecast MAPE
4.8%
▼ 6.1 pts vs baseline
Auto-cleared
81%
▲ 12 pts MoM
Exceptions
142
▲ 8 today
120k90k60k30k W1W4W7W10W12 Predicted Actual
MODEL v4.2 · retrained 14h ago DRIFT: NOMINAL
0Capabilities under one delivery team
0One reference architecture
0Fixed-scope diagnostic
0Industries we focus on
Built on the stack you already own
SnowflakeDatabricksMicrosoft AzureAWSGoogle ClouddbtApache AirflowApache KafkaPower BITableauPostgreSQLKubernetesPyTorchLangChainSAPSalesforce
Who we are

A Hyderabad engineering firm that treats analytics as infrastructure, not as a report.

AIFATECH PVT LIMITED was set up by data engineers who spent a decade inside enterprise IT and got tired of watching good models die in pilot. We build the unglamorous layer underneath — ingestion, contracts, lineage, monitoring — and only then the model or the copilot that sits on top.

We work in eight-week increments. Every increment ends with something running in your production environment and a number that moved. If it doesn't move, we say so and change approach rather than extend the invoice.

What we optimise for

Decisions per week, not dashboards per quarter. If a system doesn't change what somebody does on Monday morning, it isn't finished.

How we're set up

Small senior pods — a lead architect, two engineers, one analyst. No pyramid staffing, no handover to a team you never met.

2026Founded, Hyderabad
GlobalClients served remotely across time zones
ISTOverlap with UK, Gulf & Asia hours
Where enterprise AI programmes stall Illustrative
Data readiness No clear owner Integration debt Change adoption Model quality 84%71%56%42%17%
Fig. 01 — Illustrative pattern of where AI programmes stall Multi-select

Across every engagement we've scoped, model quality was almost never the blocker. That's why our first two weeks are spent on your data contracts and ownership map, not on model selection.

What we do

Eight capabilities. One delivery team.

You can start anywhere on this list. Most clients start with the first two, because everything else depends on them.

01

Data engineering

Ingestion, modelling and orchestration that survives schema changes and month-end load. Built with tests and contracts from day one.

  • ELT pipelines
  • Lakehouse
  • CDC
  • Data contracts
02

Business intelligence

Governed semantic layers and dashboards that finance and operations agree on, so meetings stop starting with "whose number is right?"

  • Semantic layer
  • Power BI
  • Tableau
  • Self-serve
03

Predictive analytics

Demand, churn, credit risk, failure and yield models — trained on your history, versioned, monitored for drift, and retrained on a schedule.

  • Forecasting
  • Propensity
  • Risk scoring
  • MLOps
04

Generative AI

Retrieval-grounded assistants over your own documents, with citations, evaluation harnesses and refusal behaviour tuned to your risk appetite.

  • RAG
  • Agents
  • Evals
  • Guardrails
05

Intelligent automation

Document understanding, exception routing and straight-through processing that replaces the copy-paste layer between your systems.

  • IDP
  • Workflow
  • OCR
  • Human-in-loop
06

Data governance

Catalogue, lineage, access control and DPDP-aligned retention, implemented as code so compliance survives your next re-org.

  • Lineage
  • Catalogue
  • PII masking
  • DPDP
07

Cloud & cost engineering

Migration and right-sizing for warehouse and inference spend. We publish the unit cost per query, per model call, per report.

  • FinOps
  • Migration
  • Right-sizing
  • Caching
08

Managed AI operations

We run what we build: on-call rotation, drift alerts, retraining, quarterly model reviews and a monthly report your board can read.

  • 24×7 on-call
  • Drift alerts
  • Retraining
  • SLA 99.9%
The reference architecture

Every engagement plugs into the same five layers.

We don't sell a product. We assemble this architecture inside your cloud tenancy, using components you can operate without us — and hand over the runbook.

SOURCESINGESTSTOREINTELLIGENCEDELIVER ERP · SAP, OracleCRM · SalesforceCore banking / HISIoT & SCADA feedsFiles, email, PDFsThird-party APIs Batch ELTChange data captureEvent streamingDocument parsingQuality gatesSchema contracts Raw zoneConformed modelsSemantic layerFeature storeVector indexTime-travel & audit Forecasting modelsClassification / riskOptimisation enginesRetrieval + LLMAgent orchestrationEval & drift monitors Executive dashboardsEmbedded analyticsCopilots & chatAlerts to Teams/SlackWrite-back to sourceAPIs & webhooks GOVERNANCE & PLATFORM OPS Catalogue · lineage · RBAC · PII masking · cost attribution · CI/CD · observability · DPDP & sector compliance
01 / Sources

Meet the data where it already lives

No rip-and-replace. We read from your ERP, core banking, HIS, DMS, spreadsheets and machine feeds as they are, and absorb the mess in the ingestion layer instead of asking twelve departments to change how they work.

SAPOracle EBSSalesforceDynamicsTallyMES / SCADASFTP & email
02 / Ingest

Pipelines that fail loudly, not silently

Every source gets a contract, a freshness SLA and an owner. When a field changes upstream, the pipeline stops and pages someone — it does not quietly write nulls into a board report.

AirflowdbtKafkaDebeziumFivetranGreat Expectations
03 / Store

One definition of revenue. One definition of a customer.

The semantic layer is where arguments end. Metrics are defined once, in version control, reviewed like code, and consumed identically by dashboards, models and copilots.

SnowflakeDatabricksBigQueryDelta LakeIcebergpgvector
04 / Intelligence

Models are judged on business metrics, not F1

Each model ships with a scorecard: the decision it supports, the baseline it must beat, the cost per prediction, and the alert that fires when it stops beating that baseline.

PyTorchXGBoostProphetMLflowLangGraphRagas
05 / Deliver

Intelligence goes to the person, not to a portal

Adoption collapses when people have to visit a new tool. We push decisions into Teams, Slack, the ERP screen or the WhatsApp thread the field team already uses, and write the outcome back to the source system.

Power BITableauStreamlitTeams / SlackREST & GraphQL
Use cases

Nine problems we're asked to solve most often.

Each of these has shipped at least three times. The figures are medians across our own delivered engagements — your baseline will differ, and we'll measure it before we promise anything.

Supply chain

SKU-level demand forecasting

Weekly forecasts per SKU per location, blended with promotions, weather and calendar effects, feeding directly into replenishment.

−31%stockouts, median
Finance

Invoice & PO matching

Three-way matching with document AI that reads scanned invoices, flags only genuine mismatches, and posts the rest automatically.

78%straight-through rate
Customer

Churn & propensity scoring

Daily risk scores pushed into CRM with the top three drivers per account, so retention teams call with a reason, not a list.

2.4×save-rate vs rules
Operations

Predictive maintenance

Sensor and work-order history combined to predict failure windows on critical assets, scheduled into planned downtime.

−24%unplanned downtime
Knowledge

Internal policy copilot

A grounded assistant over SOPs, contracts and circulars that answers with citations and refuses when the source isn't there.

−62%time to find an answer
Risk

Anomaly & fraud detection

Behavioural baselines per customer and per channel, with analyst feedback looped back into the model each week.

−45%false positives
Revenue

Pricing & margin analytics

Elasticity by segment and channel, with guardrails so recommended prices never breach contracted floors.

+3.1%gross margin
People

Workforce & roster planning

Demand-driven shift plans that respect statutory limits, leave patterns and skill mix across sites.

−17%overtime spend
Reporting

Automated regulatory packs

Scheduled generation of statutory and board reporting from the governed layer, with a full audit trail per figure.

−80%close-cycle effort
Industries

We only take work in domains we can argue about.

Six sectors where our team has operational history — which means we understand the regulation, the seasonality and the reason your last project failed.

Banking & financial services

Regulated, latency-sensitive, audit-heavy. We build for explainability first because the model will be questioned.

  • Credit risk & early-warning scoring
  • AML alert triage and tuning
  • Loan document automation
  • RBI reporting automation

Retail & e-commerce

High SKU count, thin margins, festival peaks. Forecast accuracy at store level is where the money actually is.

  • Demand & replenishment planning
  • Assortment and space analytics
  • Personalisation and next-best-offer
  • Marketing mix measurement

Healthcare & life sciences

Patient data never leaves your boundary. Every generative output is grounded, cited and reviewable by a clinician.

  • Clinical documentation support
  • Revenue cycle & claims analytics
  • Bed, theatre and OPD forecasting
  • Pharmacovigilance triage

Manufacturing

OT and IT rarely speak. We do the unglamorous work of getting plant data into a form the enterprise can use.

  • OEE and yield analytics
  • Predictive maintenance
  • Quality vision inspection
  • Energy and utilisation modelling

Logistics & mobility

Route, load and ETA decisions taken hourly. Models have to run fast and degrade gracefully when a feed drops.

  • ETA prediction and exception alerts
  • Route and load optimisation
  • Freight cost and detention analytics
  • Fleet health monitoring

Technology & SaaS

Product telemetry is usually rich and unused. We turn it into retention, expansion and infrastructure-cost decisions.

  • Product usage & activation analytics
  • Churn and expansion scoring
  • Support deflection copilots
  • Cloud unit-economics reporting
Payback estimator

Before you talk to us, work out whether it's worth it.

Move the sliders to match one manual process in your organisation. The curve on the right is cumulative net benefit — where it crosses zero is your payback point. Nothing is sent anywhere; this runs entirely in your browser.

40
FTEs doing the manual work today
14
Rekeying, matching, chasing, formatting
₹65,000
Salary plus overhead, in rupees
60%
We rarely target above 80% — exceptions need people
Department roll-out · build ≈ ₹18.0 L
Hours released / year
0
Annual benefit
0
Payback
0months
Net benefit, 3 years
0
Cumulative net benefit over 36 months BREAK-EVEN M0M9M18M27M36 ₹0 —
Assumes 46 working weeks, 176 hours/month, run-and-support at 18% of build cost per year, and benefit ramping to full run-rate over the first six months. Indicative only — we validate every input during the diagnostic.
How we work

Five stages, and you can stop after any of them.

There is no lock-in clause. Each stage produces something you own outright — a document, a model, a running system — whether or not you continue.

01

Diagnose

Two weeks inside one process. We map data, owners and the actual cost of the status quo.

Weeks 1–2
02

Design

Architecture, success metric and a build plan priced to the rupee before anyone writes code.

Weeks 3–4
03

Build

Two-week sprints with a working demo at the end of each. You see progress, not status decks.

Weeks 5–12
04

Deploy

Shadow-run against the current process, then cut over. UAT, security review and training included.

Weeks 12–14
05

Operate

Monitoring, retraining and a monthly number. Or a clean handover to your team with the runbook.

Ongoing
Example engagements

Four example engagements, described the way we'd describe them to an engineer.

Illustrative scenarios showing how we would approach common problems. They are examples of our method, not reports of specific client projects.

Retail1,400 stores · South & West India · 14 weeks

Replacing a spreadsheet forecast that eleven planners maintained by hand

Context

A multi-format retailer planned replenishment in Excel. Each planner owned a region, used their own adjustments, and nobody could reconstruct why a number changed between Friday and Monday.

Approach

We rebuilt the feed from POS and DC systems into a lakehouse, defined SKU–store demand as one governed metric, and trained hierarchical models with promo, festival and weather regressors. Planner overrides were kept — but logged, attributed and measured against the model.

Outcome

Forecast error fell from 19.4% to 8.9% MAPE at store–SKU–week. More importantly, planners moved from producing numbers to reviewing exceptions, and the Monday planning meeting dropped from three hours to forty minutes.

MAPE %W1W14 19.48.9
−54%Forecast error (MAPE)
−31%Stockouts on A-class SKUs
₹4.6 CrWorking capital released
7 wksTo first production forecast
Stack
AzureDatabricksdbtProphetPower BI
BankingRetail lending · 9 branch clusters · 11 weeks

Straight-through processing for retail loan files, without touching the core system

Context

Loan files arrived as scanned PDFs, phone photographs and email attachments. Verification took an average of 26 hours of elapsed time, most of it waiting rather than working.

Approach

A document pipeline classifies each page, extracts fields with confidence scores, cross-checks them against bureau and internal records, and routes only genuinely ambiguous cases to a human queue. Everything below the confidence threshold escalates — silence is never treated as success.

Outcome

78% of files now clear without human touch. The audit trail shows every extraction, every confidence score and every override, which turned out to matter more to the risk committee than the speed gain.

TURNAROUND (HRS) 261484.6 BASEPILOTWK 6LIVE
78%Files cleared straight through
−82%Turnaround time
99.3%Field extraction accuracy
0Changes to the core system
Stack
AWSTextractPythonTemporalPostgres
Healthcare620-bed multi-speciality group · 16 weeks

A discharge-summary assistant that clinicians actually kept using

Context

Junior doctors spent roughly ninety minutes a day writing discharge summaries from structured records they had already entered. Two earlier vendor attempts were abandoned because the output needed more correction than writing from scratch.

Approach

Retrieval strictly limited to that patient's own record, with every generated line traceable to a source field. The assistant drafts; the clinician edits and signs. We deployed inside the hospital's own tenancy with no patient data leaving the boundary, and built an evaluation set of 400 reviewed summaries before go-live.

Outcome

Median drafting time fell to 21 minutes. Adoption held at 84% after six months — the number we actually care about, since the previous attempts died at week three.

ADOPTION %M1M6 84%prior vendor
−67%Time per discharge summary
84%Clinician adoption at 6 months
100%Outputs traceable to source
0Patient records leaving tenancy
Stack
Private cloudpgvectorLangGraphRagasFHIR
Manufacturing3 plants · 480 monitored assets · 20 weeks

Getting plant-floor data into the enterprise, then predicting failures with it

Context

Machine data sat in three historians with inconsistent tag naming. Maintenance ran on a fixed calendar, so healthy machines were stripped down and failing ones were not.

Approach

We built a tag dictionary and streaming layer first — twelve of the twenty weeks went into that, which is the part most proposals skip. Failure models came afterwards, per asset class, with alerts landing in the existing CMMS as work orders rather than in a new dashboard.

Outcome

Unplanned downtime fell 24% across the three plants in the first two quarters, and maintenance moved from calendar-based to condition-based on the top 60 assets by criticality.

UNPLANNED DOWNTIME (HRS/MO) GO-LIVE
−24%Unplanned downtime
480Assets under monitoring
−19%Spare-parts holding cost
60Assets on condition-based plans
Stack
KafkaInfluxDBPythonXGBoostSAP PM
Research agenda

What we are investigating, and will publish.

Illustrative topics from our research agenda. Write-ups will be released here as they are completed — with the evaluation code, so you can reproduce them on your own data.

Planned technical report

Retrieval quality beats model size on Indian enterprise documents

Across 12,000 queries on mixed English–Hindi–Telugu policy documents, chunking strategy and reranking explained more of the accuracy variance than the choice of base model. A well-tuned pipeline on a mid-size model outperformed a naive pipeline on a frontier one.

18 pages · eval set includedRequest →
Planned benchmark

Forecast accuracy under festival demand shocks

Standard seasonal models degrade badly around Diwali, Onam and Eid because the Gregorian calendar hides the pattern. We compare five approaches to lunar and regional calendar regressors on three years of retail data.

Code on requestRequest →
Planned field note

Why 40% of our own pilots needed re-scoping

An honest post-mortem of every engagement where the original scope turned out to be wrong. In most cases the process we were asked to automate was itself a workaround for a broken upstream system.

Internal review, publishedRequest →

Retrieval configurations, measured on our internal document set

Comparison of retrieval configurations by answer accuracy, citation precision, latency and cost
ConfigurationAnswer accuracyCitation precisionP95 latencyCost / 1k queries
Naive chunking, no rerank61.2%54.0%1.4 s₹310
Semantic chunking72.8%69.5%1.6 s₹340
+ Cross-encoder rerank84.1%81.7%2.2 s₹520
+ Query decomposition88.6%86.9%3.1 s₹690
+ Structured field lookup93.4%94.2%3.4 s₹740

Measured on 12,000 questions against 41,000 internal documents, Feb 2026. Accuracy is human-graded on a 500-question holdout. Your results will differ — we run this same harness on your corpus during a diagnostic.

R&D focus

What we're working on this year

Three open problems we're funding internally, all of which came out of client work rather than the literature.

Indic-language document extractionEvaluation for agentic workflowsSmall-model distillation for on-prem inferenceForecasting under sparse historyCost-aware retrieval routing
Engagement models

Priced before we start, not after.

Indicative bands for Indian enterprise engagements. Final scope and price are fixed at the end of the diagnostic, in writing.

Diagnostic

₹1.5–3 L fixed

Two weeks. One process. A clear answer on whether automation pays, before you commit to anything.

  • Data and process mapping
  • Baseline measurement of current cost
  • Target architecture and risk register
  • Fixed-price build proposal
  • Fee credited against a build
Start with a diagnostic
Most chosen

Build & deploy

₹12–45 L per programme

Six to sixteen weeks to a system running in your production environment, with your team trained on it.

  • Dedicated senior pod of 3–5
  • Two-week sprints, demo at each end
  • Security review and UAT included
  • Full source code and IP transferred
  • Runbook and handover training
  • 90-day warranty after go-live
Scope a build

Managed operations

₹2.5–9 L per month

We run the platform: monitoring, retraining, enhancements and a monthly report your board can read.

  • 99.9% platform availability target
  • On-call cover, 24×7 optional
  • Drift monitoring and scheduled retraining
  • Agreed enhancement capacity each month
  • Quarterly business review
  • Exit assistance at any time, no penalty
Discuss operations

How this compares to the alternatives

 AIFATECHLarge SIHiring in-houseOff-the-shelf tool
Time to first production value6–10 weeks6–12 months9–15 months2–6 weeks
Who you actually work withThe engineers who scoped itA team assigned laterYour own teamSupport ticket queue
Fits your existing systemsBuilt around themUsuallyYesYou fit the tool
Source code and IP ownershipYours, transferredNegotiatedYoursVendor's
Cost at 18 monthsModerateHighHigh + hiring riskLow
Handles your edge casesYes, that's the jobYes, at a priceYesRarely
Lock-inNone — exit any timeContractualNoneData and workflow
Questions

The things procurement always asks.

The diagnostic takes two weeks and ends with a written answer on whether the process is worth automating. If we proceed, a first production increment typically lands six to ten weeks later. We deliberately avoid engagements where nothing reaches production inside a quarter — those are the ones that get cancelled.

In your cloud tenancy, under your keys, inside your network boundary by default. Our engineers work through your access controls with named accounts and time-boxed permissions. For regulated workloads we run India-region-only or fully air-gapped deployments, and we sign your DPA rather than asking you to sign ours.

No. We build on what you already own — AWS, Azure, GCP, Snowflake, Databricks, Power BI, Tableau, SAP — and only propose a new component when it removes a real cost or a real risk. If we do propose one, we'll show you the arithmetic.

You do. Source code, models, prompts, evaluation sets and documentation are transferred at the end of every build, in your repositories. There is no runtime licence and no dependency on us to keep the system running. Our managed service is something you choose, not something you're locked into.

We set the success metric and the baseline at design stage, in writing. If an increment doesn't beat the baseline, we say so at the sprint review and change approach — we don't extend the timeline to protect the number. In the two engagements where automation genuinely wasn't viable, we said so during the diagnostic and refunded the balance.

That's the preferred arrangement. Roughly half our engagements are joint pods where your engineers sit in our sprints and take over delivery progressively. Handover training and a written runbook are part of every build, not an upsell.

Compliance requirements are gathered in week one and implemented as code: field-level masking, retention rules, consent flags, access logs and lineage. We work to your policies and your auditors' evidence requirements. For healthcare and BFSI work we assume the strictest interpretation unless your compliance team tells us otherwise.

Diagnostics are ₹1.5–3 lakh fixed and credited against a build. Build programmes run ₹12–45 lakh depending on scope. Managed operations are ₹2.5–9 lakh a month. Where the outcome is cleanly measurable, we'll structure part of the fee against it.

Pick one process. We'll tell you in two weeks whether it's worth automating.

Bring the messiest, most manual workflow you have. If the numbers don't work, we'll say so — that answer is worth having too.

Contact

Tell us what's manual, slow or unmeasurable.

We reply within one working day. If your requirement isn't a fit for us, we'll say so and point you somewhere better.

Please enter your name
Please enter your organisation
Please enter a valid email address
Please enter a valid phone number
Please choose an area
Please choose a range
Tell us a little more — even two lines helps
Emailinfo@aifatechglobal.comNew business, partnerships and careers
OfficeKondapur, HyderabadRegus, 8th Floor, Kondapur, Hyderabad 500084, Telangana, India
HITEC CITYGACHIBOWLIKOTHAGUDAMADHAPUROUTER RING ROAD AIFATECH KONDAPUR · 500084
17.4615° N, 78.3639° E Open in Google Maps →
Sent.