zevOS

01Case study · Scaling CPO

Territory-scoped operations across 240 connectors

Individually every charger was manageable. Collectively they produced more exceptions per day than the team could chase.

Scaling charge point operatorFour states, North and Central IndiaComposite scenario
  • 240

    Connectors

  • 4

    States

  • 5

    City managers

The deployment

Profile

Hardware
Four vendors across three purchasing vintages
Protocol
Mixed OCPP 1.6J and 2.0.1
Team
City managers, field technicians, central support
Commercial
Revenue share with 30-plus site partners

The problem

What was in the way

  1. 01Every staff member could see every charger in every state, which made the console unusable and the access model indefensible.
  2. 02Configuration had drifted across vendors and vintages, and nobody could say what "standard" meant.
  3. 03Landlords and a lender were asking for uptime numbers the team could not substantiate.
  4. 04Settlement across thirty-plus partners consumed the finance team for a week each month.

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

Scope the console to the territory

Station groups restrict each city manager to their own sites with view, operate or manage rights. Owners keep full visibility. The restriction holds on exports and API access, not just the interface.

02

One configuration standard, enforced

Configuration keys are read in bulk and compared against the network standard, with corrections pushed remotely — which is how heartbeat intervals and meter sampling stopped drifting per vendor.

03

Uptime measured, not estimated

Availability is derived per connector from state timelines with maintenance excluded, so any period and any site can be evidenced with its outage list.

04

Settlement as a run, not a project

Contracts encode each partner’s terms; closing a period produces every statement at once, each line traceable to its sessions.

The outcome

What changed

  • A new state added without a new control-room shift.
  • Configuration drift visible and correctable rather than discovered during a fault.
  • Contractual uptime reporting produced on demand.
  • Month-end settlement measured in hours rather than a week.

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.