zevOS

01Case study · Retail & shopping centres

Automating revenue share across a 12-property retail portfolio

Twelve malls, twelve different revenue-share agreements, and a finance team spending a week a month on statements nobody trusted.

Retail real-estate charging operatorTier-1 and tier-2 cities, West IndiaComposite scenario
  • 12

    Properties under one operator

  • ~1 week

    Finance time per month, before

  • 3

    Different revenue-share structures

The deployment

Profile

Mix
AC destination charging with DC at four sites
Audiences
Mall visitors, tenant staff, and a nearby fleet
Commercial
Revenue share, some with minimum guarantees

The problem

What was in the way

  1. 01Each property had negotiated separately: some on percentage of net revenue, some on a fixed rate per kWh, two with minimum monthly guarantees.
  2. 02Statements were assembled by hand from exports, which meant they arrived late and were argued about when they did.
  3. 03Property finance teams had no way to verify the numbers, so every month produced the same reconciliation call.
  4. 04Visitor, tenant-staff and fleet drivers all used the same connectors and all paid the same price.

The approach

What was actually done

Each step names the mechanism rather than the outcome, so you can judge whether it would transfer to your situation.

01

Contracts as configuration

Each property’s terms — structure, rate, minimum guarantee, effective dates — were recorded as a partner contract, so the agreement and the calculation became the same object rather than two versions of one intention.

02

One settlement run, twelve statements

Closing a period now produces every property’s statement at once: sessions, energy, gross value, deductions, platform fee, taxes and net payable, ready for approval.

03

A login instead of an email

Each property received a scoped partner login showing their own chargers, uptime, sessions and earnings — live, rather than monthly.

04

Three audiences, three prices

Driver groups were used to separate mall visitors from tenant staff and the fleet account, so the same hardware serves a retail price, a subsidised staff rate and a committed fleet rate.

The outcome

What changed

  • Statements are produced by a settlement run rather than assembled by hand.
  • Property teams check their own numbers, and the monthly reconciliation call largely stopped happening.
  • Audience-based pricing raised realisation on visitor sessions without changing what staff pay.
  • Adding a thirteenth property is now a contract entry rather than a new spreadsheet.

Would the same approach work for you?

Tell us your constraints and we will say honestly which parts of this transfer and which do not.