About TechPeak Solutions
We build the software, then stay for the cutover.
TechPeak Solutions GmbH develops and distributes enterprise software solutions from Einsteinstr. 28 in Munich, and works alongside German mid-market and enterprise teams from the first scoping call to the day the new system carries real traffic.
What we develop
Two pieces of our own software, grown from the same customer problem.
Both products exist because we kept rebuilding the same connections inside customer projects. At some point it made more sense to build them once.
TechPeak Bridge
What we distribute and implement
Licensing one platform is the easy part. Making it useful in a real stack is the work.
Alongside our products we distribute and implement established platforms German enterprises commonly run — Matrix42 for IT service management and digital workplace, plus integration work around Atlassian Jira, SAP Concur, Salesforce, Paessler PRTG and IBM environments. Distribution means we handle licensing, compatibility and the integration points. We keep development and distribution clearly separate in contracts, so a buyer always knows which role we are in.
The platforms we work with
Where we work and who we work with
Munich is the address. The customer list is a kind of company, not a kind of postcode.
Most of our customers are German mid-market and enterprise organisations. The common thread is a regulated or compliance-adjacent environment — finance, healthcare-adjacent services, manufacturing and public-sector suppliers. Those buyers tend to ask harder questions about data residency and auditability, which suits how we work. We also serve customers outside Germany when the stack and the constraints are similar.
Sectors we typically see
- Finance and financial services
- Healthcare-adjacent services
- Manufacturing and industrial suppliers
- Public-sector suppliers
How we run an engagement
A scoping call first, a demonstration later.
We start with a scoping call rather than a product demonstration, because the four things we ask about — the system inventory, the data owners, any residency constraint and the deadline — are what actually determine whether a project is realistic. You keep the same contact from scoping through cutover, whether we implement alone or alongside a partner who owns the platform relationship.
-
01 Scoping
Scoping call
System inventory, data owners, residency constraints and the deadline — that list, in that order, is what we ask for in the first hour.
-
02 Proposal
Fit & design
We propose a product fit, an integration design, or an honest recommendation to look elsewhere. Not every project should end with our software.
-
03 Implementation
Implementation
Handled by our team or alongside a partner, depending on which party owns the platform relationship. Either way the scope is written down before work starts.
-
04 Cutover
Cutover & after
We stay through the go-live and the week after, because the first days of real traffic are where integration defects actually surface.
Where we say no
Three cases we turn down, on purpose.
We say so in the first meeting rather than the third. It costs us some revenue and it keeps the customer relationships long.
- Timeline does not match scope
- If a project pad says four months and the integration work says eight, we will say that in the first meeting. We would rather lose the meeting than run a project we already expect to fail.
- Master data not inventoried
- Where nobody owns the master data and the buyer will not fund that stage, the migration will fail without it. We decline rather than sign a scope that is missing its first job.
- The platform already covers the need
- We tell buyers when a platform they already own covers most of the requirement, even when it means a smaller contract for us. Closing that gap with configuration is often the cheaper answer.
TechPeak Solutions — position
We build software we would defend in an audit.
Enterprise software in Germany is bought under constraints a product demo will never show you: data residency, auditability, who can see which master data record at which point. Those constraints decided much of what our own products look like. The same applies to what we choose to distribute, and to the buyers we advise against a purchase. If a product cannot be defended in a German audit trail, it does not belong in a stack we have put our name on.
The editorial side of the business
Implementation-aware writing, by the people doing the implementations.
We publish implementation-aware content on enterprise software for the same audience we sell to. It covers platform evaluations, migration practice and buying questions in the German market, and it is produced by people who work on real implementations rather than by a marketing desk. We disclose our commercial interests, including where we have a stake in a product we write about — on the editorial standards page, in the same register as everything else.
Readers should apply the appropriate discount to anything published by a vendor, ours included. That sentence is not a legal disclaimer. It is what we would want a buyer to do if they were reading us.
Why Munich matters
Proximity speeds up the parts of a project that depend on trust.
Munich concentrates a large share of Germany's enterprise software ecosystem, from established vendors to the specialist firms that implement them. That density makes it practical to meet implementation partners and customer teams in person, which still resolves ambiguity faster than a call. It also means we hear about platform changes and market shifts early, through the same networks our customers use.
A company in Hamburg or Leipzig gets the same software. The proximity mostly shortens the parts of a project that depend on people agreeing in the same room.
A note to the reader
Two ways we show up in your project.
When we sell
We develop or distribute something you are evaluating, and we will say so plainly in the first conversation. Licence, integration and support are quoted as separate lines so you can see which part is the product and which part is us.
When we publish
We write about platforms we may or may not sell, including competitors we integrate with. Where we have a commercial stake in a product we write about, we say so on the piece and on our editorial standards page. The reader decides how much weight to give it.
A short description of your stack beats a formal request document.
For commercial enquiries, tell us what you are running today, which platform you are evaluating and what decision you are facing. We will reply with a fit — or an honest recommendation to look elsewhere — from the same team that would deliver the work.