Overview
International and national accreditors differ in scope and vocabulary, but they ask similar questions: Is there a clear mission and strategy? Are outcomes defined, assessed and used for improvement? Are faculty sufficient and qualified? Are resources adequate? Can the institution show a continuous improvement cycle rather than a one-off effort? Documentation succeeds when it answers these questions with verifiable evidence rather than assertions.
We support the main international accreditors in business and engineering — AACSB (whose 2026 Global Standards are being phased in from 2026-27), EFMD's EQUIS, and ABET's four commissions (ANSAC, CAC, EAC and ETAC) — as well as national agencies and ministry frameworks, including those aligned with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG). Standards change between cycles, so we always work from the version and templates your mentor, liaison or review team specifies.
Our role is preparation. We run gap analyses, design evidence systems, draft and edit narrative sections with your team, build data tables and run mock reviews. The institution decides what to claim, signs off every document and submits it. Accreditation decisions are made by the agency's peer reviewers and boards, and we do not represent institutions to them.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Business schools on the AACSB or EQUIS pathway, or preparing a continuous improvement review
- Engineering, computing and applied science programs preparing an ABET self-study
- Institutions preparing for national agency accreditation or ministry program licensing
- Accreditation officers and QA directors who need extra drafting and analysis capacity
- Institutions pursuing national and international accreditation at the same time
Common problems we help with
- Evidence exists but nobody can find it quickly or link it to a standard
- Faculty qualification data are inconsistent across departments
- Assessment happens but the loop is not closed — no documented changes based on results
- Narrative drafts from different authors contradict one another
- The last review raised concerns and the response is due
- Staff turnover means the institution has lost memory of the previous cycle
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Readiness review and gap analysis against the current standards or criteria, with a RAG (red–amber–green) rating per standard
- Evidence inventory: a structured register of documents, data and owners mapped to each standard
- Timeline and writing plan with section owners and internal deadlines
- Drafting and editing of narrative sections with your authors, in one consistent voice
- Data tables: faculty qualifications and sufficiency, student outcomes, assessment results, resources — in the format the agency requires
- Assurance of learning or continuous improvement documentation, including closing-the-loop examples
- Crosswalk between national and international frameworks where you pursue both
- Mock review: document desk review and simulated interviews with leadership, faculty, students and employers
- Response to review findings, progress reports and interim reports
Not included
- Submitting documents to an agency or acting as the institution's representative
- Fabricating, inflating or selectively misreporting data, meeting minutes or evidence
- Promising accreditation, a particular review outcome or timeline — decisions rest with the accrediting body
- Acting as an official mentor or reviewer appointed by an accrediting body
What you receive
- Gap analysis report
- Standard-by-standard assessment of current evidence, risks and priority actions, with realistic timelines.
- Evidence inventory
- A shared register mapping each standard or criterion to documents, data sources, owners and status.
- Drafted and edited report sections
- Narrative sections co-written with your authors, fact-checked against the evidence inventory and edited for consistency.
- Accreditation data tables
- Tables in the agency's required format, with calculation notes so figures can be reproduced.
- Mock review report
- Findings from a simulated peer review, likely questions and a list of issues to resolve before the visit.
- Visit preparation pack
- Briefing notes for interviewees, a document room index and a visit logistics checklist.
How it works
Discovery and scoping
We review your previous reports, the current standards and your timeline, and agree scope with the dean or accreditation lead.
Gap analysis workshop
A facilitated session with the steering committee rates readiness standard by standard and sets priorities.
Evidence and drafting
We set up the evidence inventory, then draft and edit sections with named authors on a shared schedule.
Internal validation
The steering committee and leadership review the full draft; we reconcile comments and verify every claim against evidence.
Mock review and handover
A mock desk review and interview rehearsal, followed by final edits. The institution approves and submits.
Frameworks and working tools
- AACSB
- Strategic management, learner success and impact themes; assurance of learning with direct and indirect measures; faculty qualification categories (SA, PA, SP, IP) and the continuous improvement review cycle.
- ABET
- Program educational objectives, student outcomes, continuous improvement (Criterion 4), curriculum, faculty, facilities and institutional support, documented in the self-study template for the review cycle.
- EQUIS
- A Self-Assessment Report structured around EFMD's framework areas, including internationalization, ethics, responsibility and sustainability, and connections with practice, followed by a peer-review visit.
- National agencies and ESG
- Institutional or program criteria of national agencies, many aligned with ESG 2015 Part 1 on internal quality assurance (a revised ESG is in preparation).
- Evidence inventory and RAG rating
- A standard-to-evidence register with red–amber–green status, used to manage the project and to populate appendices.
Evidence first, narrative second
Reviewers are experienced readers; they notice when a paragraph describes an intention rather than a practice. We write each section from the evidence inventory outward: what happens, who does it, how often, what the results were and what changed as a result. Claims without evidence are flagged for the steering committee to either document or remove.
Working across multiple frameworks
Many institutions answer to a national agency and one or two international accreditors. A single evidence system with a crosswalk avoids producing three incompatible versions of the same facts. Where frameworks define terms differently — for example faculty qualification categories or program outcomes — the crosswalk records how each figure was calculated.
- One master evidence register, many reports
- Consistent definitions of faculty, student and outcome data
- Clear version control so the latest figures are used everywhere
What a mock review adds
A mock review tests whether the documentation holds up when read cold and whether people can speak to it. Simulated interviews often reveal that a process described in the report is unknown to the faculty expected to run it — far better discovered months before the visit than during it.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative excerpt: gap analysis entry
A fictional business school preparing its first continuous improvement documentation. The entry shows the gap analysis format; content is invented.
Standard area: assurance of learning
Status: Amber. Direct measures exist for four of six learning goals in the bachelor's program. Rubric data for 'ethical reasoning' and 'global perspective' were collected once and not analyzed. No documented curriculum changes linked to results.
Evidence needed
Analysis of existing rubric data for the two goals; minutes showing faculty discussion of results; at least one implemented change with a planned re-measurement date.
Action and owner
AoL coordinator to analyze data (weeks 1–4); curriculum committee to review and agree actions (week 6); we draft the AoL narrative once decisions are recorded.
Illustrative example; real gap analyses follow the specific accreditor's standards and your evidence.
What you’ll need to provide
- The agency's current standards, templates and any correspondence from your mentor or liaison
- Previous reports, review team findings and responses
- Access to data owners (registrar, HR, finance, QA) and a named accreditation lead
- Assessment results, committee minutes and strategic plan
- Decisions on what the institution will claim and approval of every draft
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Accreditor and scope: single program, several programs or the whole school
- Stage: initial eligibility, first accreditation, continuous improvement review or response to findings
- Size of the evidence gap identified in the readiness review
- Share of drafting done by us versus editing of your authors' drafts
- Mock review format (desk review only or with on-site or online interviews)
Turnaround depends on
- Agency deadlines and the review cycle calendar
- Speed of data collection from institutional offices
- Time needed to close genuine gaps (for example completing an assessment cycle), which cannot be rushed
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Will working with you mean we get accredited?
No. Accreditation decisions are made by the accrediting body's peer reviewers and decision boards based on your institution's performance. We help you understand the standards, present genuine evidence clearly and prepare for the visit.
Which version of the standards do you use?
Always the version and templates that apply to your review cycle, as confirmed by your mentor, liaison or the agency. AACSB and ABET update their standards and templates, and EQUIS's framework evolves, so we check this at kickoff.
Will reviewers know we used a consultant?
Using external support for preparation is common and legitimate. What matters is that the institution owns the processes described and that people can speak to them in interviews. We write in your voice, from your evidence, and never invent practices.
Can you help after a negative or deferred decision?
Yes. We analyze the findings, help you build an action plan with evidence milestones and draft the progress or response report for your approval.
Do you work with national agencies outside Europe and North America?
Yes. We work from the agency's published standards and templates in whichever country you are in. Where documents are not in English we can coordinate with translators, and we note any terms that do not map directly.
How do you handle confidential data?
Institutional data are used only for the engagement, stored in locations you approve and returned or deleted at the end. We sign confidentiality agreements on request.