EDUCATION PROVIDERS
Admissions season shouldn't cost you a term of overtime.
Hundreds of repetitive enquiries in a six-week window, applications stalling on missing documents, and a faculty with no agreed position on AI. All of it addressable without touching a single student record.
What we keep finding.
The same twenty questions, several hundred times. Fees, entry requirements, intake dates, programme content — answered manually, inconsistently, across WhatsApp, phone and email.
Applications stall on missing documents. Nobody has a live view of who owes what, so the chase is reactive and enrolments leak.
Faculty have no policy, so they've invented their own. Some ban AI, some ignore it, and assessment integrity is unresolved.
Accreditation cycles consume months. Evidence gathering, documentation assembly, and gap identification, done by hand.
Today
- Enquiry1-2 days
- Manual reply20 minPeak season: 4-day lag
- Application sentvaries
- Document chase2-6 weeks
- Enrolled—
After
- Enquiryunder 10 min
- Instant structured responseauto
- Application sentinstant
- Tracked completionmonitored
- Enrolled—
Where we can help.
Admissions enquiry handling — consistent, instant responses across every channel, with structured capture
Application completeness tracking — who owes what, with automated escalating reminders
Faculty AI literacy programme — practical training on use, assessment design and policy
Student and faculty AI policy — a defensible institutional position, written and trained rather than assumed
Accreditation evidence assembly — collection, tracking, gap identification and drafting support
Parent and student broadcast communication — announcements and FAQ handling
Enrolment funnel reporting — enquiry to application to enrolment, by source and programme
Staff knowledge base — institutional procedures and onboarding
What we don't work on
We do not process student records, grades, transcripts, or any individual student’s personal data — and we are especially careful where minors are involved. We do not build automated marking, applicant scoring, admissions decisions, or AI-detection adjudication. Detection tools are unreliable and we won’t help you build policy on top of them; assessment redesign is the durable answer and we’ll say so.
Can you help us catch students using AI?
No, and we'd advise against building policy around detection. Current detection tools produce false positives at rates that will eventually put you in an unwinnable dispute with a student and their parents. What works is redesigning assessment so that AI use is either irrelevant or explicitly permitted and disclosed, and training faculty to design for that. It's more work upfront and it's the only approach that holds.
How this usually starts.
Process Survey
Two to three weeks.
Priced after the session.
Three to five core processes drawn, every opportunity scored on effort and impact, and a costed twelve-month roadmap. You own it whether or not you work with us again.
Team Training
One to two days.
Priced per cohort, not per head.
Your team learns to use AI on their actual work, and leaves with a prompt library built around your processes. Your documents, not demo data.
Build
Three to four weeks.
Priced after the survey.
One to three workflows built, tested, documented and handed over — and where nothing off the shelf fits, a custom application built the same way.
Every engagement is scoped and priced after the session, against work we've both seen. If your problem doesn't need us, we'll tell you, and point you at something cheaper.
Start with ninety minutes.
Book a Process Room Session. We'll draw one process properly and tell you honestly whether AI belongs in it.