A property business in Saudi Arabia runs on a chain that looks simple and never is: lease → invoice → collect → maintain → renew. The real estate software decisions that matter are the ones that keep that chain in one system of record — because the moment leasing lives in one place, collections in another and facilities in a third, arrears age invisibly, maintenance costs detach from the assets that caused them, and the portfolio question "what does this building actually earn" takes a week to answer.
We advise independently: selection, architecture and implementation assurance, no margin on licences, no bids on implementations we scope. Proptech is a crowded, commission-driven market; an advisor paid only by the advisory fee is the exception, and that exception is what this page offers.
Three pressures dominate, and they compound across the lease-to-renewal chain.
Residential and commercial leasing runs through the national rental platform, Ejar, and your systems either integrate with that reality or your teams re-enter it by hand. The sector regulator's requirements, e-invoicing under the tax authority across rent, service charges and facilities billing, and the national data law over tenant data complete the picture. Ejar integration is the one we are asked about most, and the one most platforms claim loosely — make the claim specific in selection.
Collections. Rent is periodic, service charges are variable, and arrears management across a portfolio is a process, not a report. Where collections tooling is weak, the operational reality becomes phone calls and spreadsheets, and the ageing report is archaeology. Maintenance is its close second: work orders that never link back to the unit and the lease mean facilities cost is unallocatable.
The unit is the natural join of the whole business — lease, tenant, invoice, work order, meter — and in most estates we meet, no two systems agree on the unit list. Until the property master is single-sourced, every portfolio dashboard is an estimate.
One property management core from leasing through collections; Ejar and e-invoicing integration that removes re-entry; facilities management tied to units and leases; tenant self-service that reduces the call load; and portfolio reporting a board can trust because it comes from one system of record.
We map the portfolio and the chain first — asset classes, lease shapes, collection reality, facilities model — then agree requirements and weights before any vendor is named, run the selection against them, and stay through implementation as client-side assurance. The method is described on our vendor-neutral IT consulting page.
Property management systems covering leasing, billing and collections; facilities and maintenance management; tenant portals and self-service; and the finance integration that makes the portfolio reportable — with the property master designed to live once.
Platforms we work with in this space include Reterra Boost and Reterra Collaborate on the property side, and Eddekhar where savings and payment programs are part of the tenant proposition. Whether any of them fits your portfolio is what a selection determines; none of these links is a recommendation without one.
Because proptech is sold hard and integrated loosely: every platform claims the whole chain and delivers a segment. An advisor with no margin at stake can score those claims against your portfolio instead of the vendor's roadmap. No resale margin, no implementation bids on scoped work — in writing, every engagement.
No anonymised composite appears here. Organizations that consented to be named are on our customers page; attributable work is walked through in a first conversation — hold every bidder to that standard.
Fragmented lease-to-collection chains, weak collections tooling, unlinked facilities cost, and a property master no two systems agree on — sections 1 and 2 above.
A property management core matched to your asset classes, facilities management tied to units and leases, tenant self-service where volume justifies it, and finance integration always. Everything else must argue its way in.
Selections in weeks; implementations in months, with lease-data migration the usual long pole. A scoped, written answer follows the first conversation — a duration quoted before the portfolio is inspected is a guess.
Ejar for leasing, the sector regulator's framework, e-invoicing under the tax authority, and the national data law over tenant data. The current clause-level text belongs to the regulators and your compliance function; we build so the evidence exists.
Yes — demonstrated on the customers page and in reference calls, not asserted in prose here.
No figures are published in this section, deliberately: numbers on a sector page verify nowhere and go stale silently. The checkable record is on the customers page and in references arranged on request.
Named only with consent, only on the maintained customers page. References matched to your portfolio are provided on request.
Presented attributably in first conversations — scope, duration, what changed. No unattributed outcome claim appears on this page.
Nothing is quoted here that cannot be attributed and questioned. Attributed experience is available through reference calls, arranged on request.
Listed in proposals, where they are current and checkable. The structural claim stands on this page: no licence margin, no implementation bids on work we scoped — in writing, every engagement.
For the selection method itself, see vendor-neutral IT consulting; the full sector list is at industries.
If your lease-to-collection chain has the seams this page describes, book a decision session: your portfolio, our chain-mapping method, and our conflict-of-interest position in writing before we begin.
Unlimited support included.
One-on-one onboarding sessions.
Training videos, webinars, & demos.