Carl Christensen on outcome-based design, finding product-market fit in a resistant industry, and why culture trumped valuation in the M&A process

When Carl Christensen first started talking to architects in 2016, his immediate reaction was confusion. Coming from a software engineering background scaling products for Nordic companies, the workflows he observed didn't make sense.

That confusion became the seed of Spacemaker, which Autodesk eventually acquired. Carl now leads product development for Autodesk Forma, but the lessons from building and exiting Spacemaker offer a masterclass in navigating one of the industry's toughest challenges.

Here are five lessons that apply whether you're raising your seed round or preparing for an exit.

Bottom line: Winning in AEC tech demands patience, systems thinking, and trust-building, not SaaS shortcuts. If you’re building for quick wins, you’ll stall. If you’re building leverage into the system, you create something worth acquiring.

Carl's first instinct was to fix individual problems one by one. There were inefficiencies everywhere. Surely there had to be easy wins.

That approach didn't work.

The team spent more time digging into root causes and developed what Carl calls a systemic hypothesis.

This led to what they called outcome-based design: focusing on the actual purpose of a construction project rather than deliverables like models or drawings. The challenge isn't that people don't understand a hospital should improve health. The challenge is competing outcomes pulling in different directions:

When you're selling transformation rather than features, you need to help buyers understand why their current approach creates these tensions. Spacemaker wasn't another tool. It was a framework for thinking differently about decisions.

If you're solving point problems, you'll face objections about workflow disruption. If you're solving the system, you're creating a category. That takes longer but builds defensibility that point solutions never achieve.

Most AEC software targets late-stage projects where teams spend significant hours. The logic makes sense: go where the budgets live.

Spacemaker went elsewhere.

Carl notes that few software companies focused on the early stage because it's not the obvious cost driver. The team observed that teams constantly realize they could have done something differently. Either they get information too late, or they make early decisions without critical data.

Early in projects, teams make high-level defining decisions about where to build, how big, and the basic massing. As they progress and detail the building, they learn more but become constrained by previous decisions. Teams can't incorporate information gained later because fundamental choices are already locked in

Supporting early-stage decisions that were typically done without software became Spacemaker's focus. The insight was leverage. Small changes early create exponential downstream impact. Better starting points lead to better outcomes. But nobody was asking for this software because the pain point wasn't obvious in budget line items.

"The first three years, we didn't have product-market fit. We had a product that was beautiful, and it worked, but we couldn't sell it."

Spacemaker had working AI. Simulation capabilities predicting sunlight, noise, and wind. Beta users who loved it. But they couldn't monetize at scale.

"We were kind of constantly pivoting and adjusting," Carl admits. The turning point came when conversations shifted from "This is interesting" to "When can we use this on our next project?" That subtle change signaled customers moving from curiosity to dependency.

Product-market fit takes three to five years in AEC because:

If you're selling transformation rather than efficiency gains, expect a three- to five-year journey. This affects how you raise capital, set investor expectations, and structure burn rate.

Don't confuse enthusiastic pilots with scalable demand. You need customers who can't imagine going back.

"The most important parts of the conversations were the relational," Carl says about the Autodesk acquisition. "We talked about culture, and we talked about goals."

Due diligence included extensive discussions with Amy, who became Carl's boss. These weren't just financial negotiations. They were conversations about intentions, what would happen to the team, and whether visions aligned.

"We want them to succeed in Autodesk," Carl explains. "And it really stayed true to that."

Carl's advice centers on avoiding existential negotiations. When you enter talks feeling you must close this deal or everything falls apart, you lose the ability to have honest conversations. You become guarded.

Having options matters, even if theoretical. When you have that baseline comfort with the other party and believe the outcome will be good, the process becomes much smoother rather than anxious and adversarial.

This isn't soft advice. It's strategic. Cultural fit determines whether your team thrives post-acquisition, whether your product vision gets realized, whether integration creates value or destroys it.

Start building relationships with potential acquirers 12 to 18 months early. Have conversations about vision and culture before valuation. Test whether intentions align with what you believe is right for your team and product. If vision doesn't align, valuation becomes irrelevant.

Spacemaker used generative AI and simulation starting in 2016, years before the 2023 AI boom. The technical bet combined generative design with fast simulation of sunlight, noise, and wind.

The platform imported GIS data, terrain data, traffic data, and surrounding building information. It generated options for changes and simulated their impact, all presented "in a way that didn't require prior training to understand."

This democratization mattered. Decision-makers could understand trade-offs without engineering degrees. They could see how to create high-quality courtyards while ensuring even the worst apartments received adequate light.

But making AI outputs trustworthy for regulated decisions took years. The technology had to prove itself on real projects with real consequences. Teams needed confidence that simulations were accurate, generated options were feasible, and recommendations wouldn't create regulatory problems.

By the Autodesk acquisition, this wasn't experimental technology. It was production-ready, validated by years of real-world use. That validation made the acquisition valuable.

If you're betting on emerging technology in conservative industries, you need three to five years to prove it works. Start building proof points now, even if the market isn't ready to buy at scale. The companies that win prove their technology works when it matters most.

These five lessons share a common thread: building in AEC requires patience, systems thinking, and cultural awareness beyond typical software playbooks.

➔ Patient capital that understands three-year journeys to product-market fit becomes essential.

➔ Identifying systemic problems rather than chasing obvious pain points creates defensible positions.

➔ Finding leverage points where small changes create exponential impact separates essential tools from nice-to-haves.

➔ Proving emerging technology in production environments takes years but determines acquisition value.

➔ And when exit opportunities arrive, cultural alignment matters as much as financial terms.

Carl's current work at Autodesk on Forma Building Design continues this outcome-based thinking, bridging early-stage massing and detailed BIM. The patterns he learned building Spacemaker now form how Autodesk thinks about design's future.

The question for anyone building in AEC tech: Are you solving point problems or systemic ones? Are you chasing existing budgets or finding leverage points? Are you building for quick wins or long-term transformation?

Those answers determine whether you build something that gets acquired or something that gets abandoned.

Watch the episode with Carl Christensen here 👇👇👇

What's the systemic problem in your corner of AEC that everyone's accepted as "just how it works"? Reply to this email and let us know. At Bricks & Bytes, we read every response.

Five options in a single run

The new scarcest resource

Hadrian hits unicorn status