A Growing Market, a Persistent Misalignment
Demand for Technology Expense Management has never been higher.
Telecom spending is rising. Environments are getting more complex. Budget pressure is increasing. Regulatory expectations are tightening.
On paper, the market is stepping up.
In reality, what we see in the field is more nuanced. Many TEM providers do not actually meet the needs of the European midmarket. And this gap isn’t cyclical, it’s structural.
The core issue is not company size. The core issue is the nature of the complexity.
The European market is not a lighter version of the enterprise segment. It becomes multicountry very early, multicarrier almost by default, and is rarely equipped with dedicated internal TEM teams.
Many solutions were built for another world. A different pace. Another organizational model.
Not all TEM providers are (and not all will ever be) suited for this market.
Historically, most TEM platforms were built for the Fortune 500: long projects, heavy integrations, complex deployments, and dedicated internal teams.
That model works when you have deep resources and long decision cycles.
In Europe, expectations differ:
- fast time to value
- measurable benefits early on
- operational simplicity
- ability to evolve without massive transformation projects
- options for partial or full outsourcing
What we see is that, lacking adequate offerings, many companies still manage telecom spend in Excel or basic accounting tools. This is not immaturity. It is a lack of fitforpurpose options.
Why the European mid-market cannot be Treated like the U.S. mid-market
Confusing the U.S. midmarket with the European midmarket is a common mistake.
In the United States, a midmarket company often operates in a single domestic market: relatively uniform taxation, a limited number of carriers, easier standardization.
In Europe, a company with 800 or 1,000 employees may operate in five countries.
With five tax regimes. Five carriers. Five different contractual logics.
The complexity isn’t volumetric. It is structural.
A TEM designed for a singlecountry environment quickly becomes inadequate.
A major requirement that is often ignored or misunderstood in TEM implementations is VAT management.
U.S. sales tax rarely shapes a TEM project.
European VAT directly impacts cost allocation, tax recovery, and compliance.
A TEM that is not “VAT-ready” generates accounting errors and financial losses.
This is not a premium feature. It is a prerequisite.
Add to this: data sovereignty, GDPR, data residency, and auditability.
TEM platforms handle sensitive data: usage patterns, equipment identifiers, consumption details.
In Europe, compliance must be native, not contractual.
Mid-market Companies Don’t Buy a “Full TEM.” They Buy an Operational TEM
Decisionmakers are no longer looking for monolithic platforms. They want building blocks they can activate quickly:
- TEM
- TEM + MMS
- IT lifecycle / ITAD
- Managed UEM
Having lots of features is no longer the decisive factor.
The decisive factor is fast, visible ROI.
Some players will never fit the European market: not because of technical weakness, but because their DNA is anchored in long, heavy, expensive projects.
This cannot be corrected through superficial commercial adaptations.
Platform-Only or Services-Only: Two Symmetrical Dead Ends
The TEM market remains shaped by a historic split:
- on one side: pure software vendors
- on the other: service organizations managing complex processes
European companies now expect a hybrid model:
- integrated platform
- operational execution capability
- invoice processing and validation
- MACD management
- mobility support
- logistics and device refresh
- ITAD (IT Asset Disposition)
In practice, efficiency comes from convergence.
A tool without execution creates internal dependency.
A service without a platform creates opacity.
Puresoftware and pureservices providers will need to evolve significantly to stay relevant.
Modern TEM: Convergence of TEM, MMS, UEM/MDM, and ITAD
TEM is no longer isolated. In mature organizations, spending, assets, security, and compliance are interdependent.
A relevant TEM today must align with:
- MMS (ordering, fleet management, MACD)
- UEM/MDM (security policies, multiOS, continuous compliance)
- ITAD (offboarding, certified wiping, reuse)
Treating these building blocks separately creates silos. Multiplying touchpoints weakens lifecycle integrity.
We consistently see that the real value comes from integrating these capabilities — not from adding more vendors or contracts.
Europe: A Maturity Filter for TEM Providers
The European market acts as a stress test:
- GDPR
- multicountry tax
- fiscal constraints
- data residency
- local support
These are not optional details. They shape daily operations.
A provider capable of serving the European market demonstrates operational maturity.
The reverse is not necessarily true.
A “global TEM” that ignores multioperator complexity, data localization, or tax realities will not scale in Europe.
Conclusion: A Question of Maturity, Not Marketing
The Technology Expense Management market is entering a phase of natural selection.
Not all solutions are suitable for the European market, and some never will be.
For CIOs, CFOs, and procurement leaders, the question is no longer about comparing feature lists.
The real question is: Can this TEM provider handle our actual complexity, today and tomorrow?