I help engineering teams make complex systems technically manageable earlier. That way, risks become visible in time, decisions become more robust and unnecessary loops are avoided before they cost time, money and trust.
In complex projects, problems often only become visible long after their causes arose.
If crucial questions are clarified too late, costs rise, schedules come under pressure and commitments become less reliable.
Critical interactions between hardware, software, control and physical system behaviour often only become visible late, under real conditions.
Critical requirements and technical questions are often only verified late. By then, architecture, software or hardware are usually largely fixed, and changes are correspondingly expensive.
Dependencies between requirements, architecture, interfaces and tests are not transparent enough. The impact of changes has to be pieced together with great effort.
Models and tests keep growing without being consistently focused on the technical questions the project actually needs to answer.
Tools are introduced before it is clear which development logic, responsibilities and workflows they are actually meant to support. The result is often more complexity rather than more impact.
Engineers often experience processes mainly as additional documentation, coordination and maintenance effort. At the same time, changes remain hard to trace, dependencies unclear and their impact can only be assessed with great effort.
Where to start depends on your situation. The Development Check and the Gap Analysis provide orientation, Development Support implements prioritised measures in a project or a pilot, and Technical Sparring remains available flexibly.
A first look at where technical questions are answered too late in your development. You receive a compact maturity picture and first pointers to the biggest levers.
We analyse your development in interviews and workshops with the relevant stakeholders. The result is a prioritised assessment of the biggest technical and organisational levers, with clear measures for implementation.
We implement the prioritised measures in an ongoing project or a targeted pilot. The aim is to introduce and anchor the methodology in everyday development and to enable the team to continue the way of working independently.
I provide flexible support with complex questions, reviews and technical decisions. Sparring can build on an existing collaboration or be used independently of it.
I help companies structure complex mechatronic development methodically and make it technically manageable. To do this, I combine many years of development experience with in-depth expertise in systems engineering, MBD, MBSE, simulation, early verification and the introduction of effective development processes.
Core field: Automotive · Embedded Systems · mechatronic systems
Transferable to: Medical technology · Robotics · Aerospace · Industrial Automation
What matters is not introducing as many methods as possible. What matters is choosing the measures that create technical clarity, make development more efficient and work in the team for the long term.
My approach combines analysis, concrete implementation and enablement. The three areas interlock and ensure that your team can continue the new way of working independently afterwards.
Together with the relevant stakeholders, I analyse where technical questions are answered too late, which loops keep recurring and where methods, processes or tools do not serve their purpose.
We prioritise the measures with the greatest benefit and implement suitable methods, processes or tools directly in the project, on the product or in a targeted pilot.
The new way of working is introduced together with the team, responsibilities are clarified and knowledge is transferred in a targeted way.
Higher development efficiency, shorter development times and better quality. Critical risks become visible earlier, technical decisions more robust, and expensive correction loops in late development phases are reduced. At the same time, a way of working emerges that your team can continue independently and transfer to further products and projects.
Some of my projects are under NDA, so I cannot name those clients here.
What matters is whether new methods work in everyday development, create technical clarity and move teams forward for the long term.
Matthias played a key role in not only introducing modern methods such as Model-Based Design and Model-Based Systems Engineering in our company, but in integrating them seamlessly. This integrated approach enabled us to design development processes end to end, reuse work products and thereby noticeably increase process efficiency.
As a driver of efficient simulation strategies and automated testing, Matthias ensured that development errors were detected not late, but right in the early phases. This proactive shift-left approach minimised costly rework and accelerated the entire product development.
His structured approach led to noticeable improvements in our processes: development times were shortened, quality increased and teamwork made more efficient. Anyone looking for an expert who doesn’t just advise but delivers real results is in exactly the right place with Matthias. Highly recommended!
Matthias combines sound consulting with real implementation experience and guides complex safety-critical developments in a structured way all the way to a working series product. Technically strong, reliable and a clear recommendation.
His quick grasp and his deep understanding of control engineering were invaluable. I was particularly impressed by his ability to solve complex problems analytically while always remaining calm and composed.
For companies that develop complex mechatronic systems in which software, electronics and physical system behaviour interact. My core field is automotive, embedded systems and mechatronics; the methods can equally be transferred to medical technology, robotics, aerospace and industrial automation.
I analyse your development in interviews and workshops with the relevant stakeholders. The result is a prioritised assessment of the biggest technical and organisational levers, with clear measures for implementation.
No. We prioritise the biggest levers and make changes specifically where they create technical and organisational benefit. The introduction can take place on the actual product, in an ongoing project or in a targeted pilot.
That is why the methodology is tied as closely as possible to ongoing development. This does not create a parallel world of workshops and documentation, but a way of working that has to prove itself directly in the project.
No. First we clarify the development logic, processes and the technical questions that need to be answered earlier or more reliably; only then do we decide whether existing tools are sufficient or additional tool support makes sense.
No, not if processes are aligned with their actual purpose. The goal is lean workflows that enable traceability, impact analysis and reliable evidence, so that audit readiness and efficient development do not contradict each other.
That depends on scope, team size and the question at hand. In the introductory call we clarify the right next step, and you then receive a clearly defined proposal framework.
An NDA before the first substantive exchange is no problem. Project content and references are only published with explicit approval.
The Development Check is available at any time. For the Gap Analysis, Development Support and Technical Sparring, we agree on a realistic start date that fits your situation and my available capacity.
We discuss your current situation and clarify whether and in what form I can support you. Afterwards, we agree on the next steps and the right offer.
Rather see where you stand first? Free Development Check