Rates that disagree across channels
One inventory position and one rate engine, with per-buyer resolution at request time. There is no second rate table to fall out of sync, so a change is a change everywhere.
Home/Solutions
Solutions
Start from the problem, not the product list.
Nobody buys a commercial operations module. They buy an end to a rate that will not update, a report two teams argue about, or a reconciliation that eats the first week of every month.
Outcomes
Five problems we are asked about most.
Each of these maps to capabilities already in the platform. None of them requires a separate purchase.
Month-end that takes a week
Commission, adjustment and settlement lines reference the booking directly, and rounding is handled in one place. Reconciliation becomes a query rather than a rebuild.
Two reports, two answers
Metric definitions live at the platform level and travel with exports, so commercial operations, revenue and finance count the same booking the same way.
Contracts the system does not honour
Terms are captured as structured data during contracting, so what was negotiated is what gets sold — including allotments, conditions and credit terms.
Work that repeats every single day
Recurring commercial and operational tasks run on schedule with a full record of what ran and why, and human approval retained on anything that moves money or changes a rate.
No shared view of the day
Arrivals, exceptions and commercial pace in one operational picture, so revenue and operations stop working from different versions of today.
Pricing & revenue
A rate is a decision. It should carry its reasoning.
Automated pricing fails politically before it fails technically. A general manager who cannot see why a rate moved will override it, and then the system is no longer the source of truth.
TESSMA keeps the constraint, the demand signal and the rule beside the number. Overrides are allowed, recorded, and visible in the same place — which is what makes the automation survivable.
- Rules are readable, not opaque scores
- Overrides are first-class and attributed
- Floor, ceiling and parity constraints enforced before publication
- Rule visible
- Beside the rate
How an engagement runs
Scope narrowly. Prove it. Then widen.
01
Name the problem in numbers
Hours lost, revenue at risk, or a specific dispute between two teams. If we cannot state it that way, it is not ready to solve.
02
Model your real contracts
Your rate structures, channels and terms — not a sample dataset. This is where most surprises surface, so it happens first.
03
Run it alongside what you have
A defined period where both systems are live and results are compared. You keep your fallback until the comparison is settled.
04
Cut over, then extend
Once the first problem is genuinely fixed, additional modules read the same record — so the second phase is configuration, not another implementation.
Reference engagements, named clients and measured results will be published here only once clients have approved attribution. TESSMA does not publish case studies it cannot evidence.
Which of these is costing you the most?
Tell us in one paragraph. We will tell you honestly whether TESSMA is the right answer.