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
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.
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.
Decisions per week, not dashboards per quarter. If a system doesn't change what somebody does on Monday morning, it isn't finished.
Small senior pods — a lead architect, two engineers, one analyst. No pyramid staffing, no handover to a team you never met.
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.
You can start anywhere on this list. Most clients start with the first two, because everything else depends on them.
Ingestion, modelling and orchestration that survives schema changes and month-end load. Built with tests and contracts from day one.
Governed semantic layers and dashboards that finance and operations agree on, so meetings stop starting with "whose number is right?"
Demand, churn, credit risk, failure and yield models — trained on your history, versioned, monitored for drift, and retrained on a schedule.
Retrieval-grounded assistants over your own documents, with citations, evaluation harnesses and refusal behaviour tuned to your risk appetite.
Document understanding, exception routing and straight-through processing that replaces the copy-paste layer between your systems.
Catalogue, lineage, access control and DPDP-aligned retention, implemented as code so compliance survives your next re-org.
Migration and right-sizing for warehouse and inference spend. We publish the unit cost per query, per model call, per report.
We run what we build: on-call rotation, drift alerts, retraining, quarterly model reviews and a monthly report your board can read.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weekly forecasts per SKU per location, blended with promotions, weather and calendar effects, feeding directly into replenishment.
Three-way matching with document AI that reads scanned invoices, flags only genuine mismatches, and posts the rest automatically.
Daily risk scores pushed into CRM with the top three drivers per account, so retention teams call with a reason, not a list.
Sensor and work-order history combined to predict failure windows on critical assets, scheduled into planned downtime.
A grounded assistant over SOPs, contracts and circulars that answers with citations and refuses when the source isn't there.
Behavioural baselines per customer and per channel, with analyst feedback looped back into the model each week.
Elasticity by segment and channel, with guardrails so recommended prices never breach contracted floors.
Demand-driven shift plans that respect statutory limits, leave patterns and skill mix across sites.
Scheduled generation of statutory and board reporting from the governed layer, with a full audit trail per figure.
Six sectors where our team has operational history — which means we understand the regulation, the seasonality and the reason your last project failed.
Regulated, latency-sensitive, audit-heavy. We build for explainability first because the model will be questioned.
High SKU count, thin margins, festival peaks. Forecast accuracy at store level is where the money actually is.
Patient data never leaves your boundary. Every generative output is grounded, cited and reviewable by a clinician.
OT and IT rarely speak. We do the unglamorous work of getting plant data into a form the enterprise can use.
Route, load and ETA decisions taken hourly. Models have to run fast and degrade gracefully when a feed drops.
Product telemetry is usually rich and unused. We turn it into retention, expansion and infrastructure-cost decisions.
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.
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.
Two weeks inside one process. We map data, owners and the actual cost of the status quo.
Weeks 1–2Architecture, success metric and a build plan priced to the rupee before anyone writes code.
Weeks 3–4Two-week sprints with a working demo at the end of each. You see progress, not status decks.
Weeks 5–12Shadow-run against the current process, then cut over. UAT, security review and training included.
Weeks 12–14Monitoring, retraining and a monthly number. Or a clean handover to your team with the runbook.
OngoingIllustrative scenarios showing how we would approach common problems. They are examples of our method, not reports of specific client projects.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Configuration | Answer accuracy | Citation precision | P95 latency | Cost / 1k queries |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naive chunking, no rerank | 61.2% | 54.0% | 1.4 s | ₹310 |
| Semantic chunking | 72.8% | 69.5% | 1.6 s | ₹340 |
| + Cross-encoder rerank | 84.1% | 81.7% | 2.2 s | ₹520 |
| + Query decomposition | 88.6% | 86.9% | 3.1 s | ₹690 |
| + Structured field lookup | 93.4% | 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.
Three open problems we're funding internally, all of which came out of client work rather than the literature.
Written by the people doing the work, not by a content agency.
Waiting for a clean warehouse before touching AI is how three-year programmes get cancelled in year two. A narrower path works better.
Read the articleTeams spend weeks on prompts and an afternoon on evaluation. Reverse that ratio and adoption follows, because you can finally prove the thing works.
Read the articleNot everything needs a model. A decision table for choosing between rules, RPA, classical ML and an LLM — with the cost of each.
Read the articleIndicative bands for Indian enterprise engagements. Final scope and price are fixed at the end of the diagnostic, in writing.
Two weeks. One process. A clear answer on whether automation pays, before you commit to anything.
Six to sixteen weeks to a system running in your production environment, with your team trained on it.
We run the platform: monitoring, retraining, enhancements and a monthly report your board can read.
| AIFATECH | Large SI | Hiring in-house | Off-the-shelf tool | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to first production value | 6–10 weeks | 6–12 months | 9–15 months | 2–6 weeks |
| Who you actually work with | The engineers who scoped it | A team assigned later | Your own team | Support ticket queue |
| Fits your existing systems | Built around them | Usually | Yes | You fit the tool |
| Source code and IP ownership | Yours, transferred | Negotiated | Yours | Vendor's |
| Cost at 18 months | Moderate | High | High + hiring risk | Low |
| Handles your edge cases | Yes, that's the job | Yes, at a price | Yes | Rarely |
| Lock-in | None — exit any time | Contractual | None | Data and workflow |
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.
Bring the messiest, most manual workflow you have. If the numbers don't work, we'll say so — that answer is worth having too.
We reply within one working day. If your requirement isn't a fit for us, we'll say so and point you somewhere better.