In 2017, Aconex was sold to Oracle for $1.2 billion. It remains the largest AEC tech acquisition globally. Rob Phillpot, founder and then head of product and engineering at Aconex, watched it happen from inside.

Most people attribute exits like this to luck, timing, or innovation. But the real story is different. It's a sequence of systematic decisions made at specific inflection points, decisions that compound over time.

Phillpot describes that moment: "I felt both immensely, like I felt sad, but I felt immensely proud at the same time." Pride at the validation of what the team had built. Sadness that something irreplaceable was ending. But here's what matters: that moment wasn't the inflection point. The real inflection points came years earlier, when the company made five specific decisions that made a billion-dollar exit not just possible, but inevitable.

Aconex didn’t become a $1.2B exit by luck. They removed friction everywhere:

One principle: remove friction → compounding adoption → inevitable scale.

Construction tech founders typically default to transaction-based pricing: per user, plus storage, plus transaction fees. It seems logical. Mathematically clean. It protects your margins.

In practice, it hits adoption hard.

When pricing penalizes usage, customers can't predict costs, and they ration. They give licenses only to power users, hesitate before uploading drawings, and think twice before processing RFIs. Rationing erodes adoption, and adoption is your moat.

Aconex pivoted to construction-value-based pricing. Rather than charging per user, per storage unit, and per transaction, they priced the entire project as a single unit. This meant unlimited users, unlimited documents, unlimited uploads.

This sounds like a cost nightmare. In reality, it played out very differently.

When customers stop counting pennies, behavior changes fundamentally

Usage skyrocketed. More usage meant stronger product lock-in, better data, and network effects that compounded over time.

The leverage came from targeting project networks, not individual companies. A construction project has 50 to 200 companies working together. When projects end and teams disperse, they carry knowledge of the tool forward to their next five projects; they already know it works.

His network effect wasn't accidental. It was the direct consequence of removing usage throttling: when people stop worrying about costs, they use your product more, get more value, and keep coming back.

Early concerns about storage costs seemed rational at the time. "If we offer unlimited uploads, we'll go bankrupt on storage." That fear was understandable in the early 2000s when storage was expensive.

But the math was fundamentally wrong. Storage costs are marginal; customer acquisition and retention costs are existential. The companies that heavily utilized it renewed their contracts. The companies that rationed left.

Phillpot reflects on this insight: "If people use your software a lot, that's not a problem. In fact, that's a great thing." The reasoning is straightforward: if someone's using your product heavily, they're getting value. And if they're getting value, they'll come back. The cost of storing another document or deploying to another user is basically zero compared to the cost of losing a customer.

The principle is this: move away from pricing that primarily protects incremental costs and toward pricing that maximizes how much value customers extract from your product. Align what they pay with what they value, not with what it costs you to serve them.

When Aconex was dominant in Australia by 2003, the logical next move seemed obvious: the US. Biggest market. Fastest growth. Most capital.

They didn't do that.

Instead, they went to the UK. Similar legal system. Cultural proximity. The market size is big enough to move the revenue needle. But here's the strategic insight: the US had multiple well-funded competitors already fighting it out. None of them had gone global yet. In a market where eight competitors are fighting each other, very few have the oxygen to expand internationally. That's a window.

The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was the 2007–2009 period of severe stress in global financial markets that triggered deep recessions in many countries and hit construction activity especially hard in markets exposed to credit and housing bubbles.

By then, Aconex had exposure across Australia, the UK, the Middle East, Hong Kong, and Asia. The UK move proved prescient during the 2008 financial crisis.

When the GFC hit, different markets behaved differently:

While competitors who'd bet everything on US growth got crushed, Aconex merely slowed. They never went into negative growth. They emerged from the crisis as the clearly dominant global player.

The geographic expansion taught another critical lesson about go-to-market strategy. Resellers don't work for SaaS. In the old software days, resellers made their money on services and customization sitting atop a licensed product. But when you build a SaaS company with no customization, there's no margin for the reseller. They want commission on the software deal, but that's not enough to justify their effort.

Partners, however, worked brilliantly in relationship-heavy cultures like China, Japan, and the Middle East, where introductions matter more than cold outreach. In these markets, trust and relationships are the primary currency. Having a local partner who already had credibility in the market was worth far more than trying to scale direct sales.

The actionable principle: geographic expansion compounds when you have home market dominance. You have references proving the model works. You have team experience repeatable across new markets. You have cost efficiency with lower customer acquisition costs. Go global after you own a market, not before. The impulse to chase the biggest market first is understandable. It's also usually wrong.

Most founders tier their pricing by removing capabilities. Bronze gets basic features. Silver gets more. Gold gets everything. This creates a handicapped version for the lowest tier.

Bronze customers end up with a product that doesn't do half of what they actually need. It feels less like a true tier and more like an underpowered version.

A better approach: give all tiers full functionality. Tier by natural usage patterns, not feature scarcity. A small contractor and an enterprise both need the same core features. But they have different project volumes, different team sizes, different data complexity. Price tiers should reflect these natural breakpoints, not artificial feature restrictions.

When a customer hits a tier boundary, they should think, "I'm growing, so this next tier makes sense for where I want to be." Not: "The current tier won't let me do basic stuff I need."

This matters because of how pricing mechanisms affect behavior. Credit-based models, common in AI and SaaS today, create hesitation. "Should I generate this? Will it burn credits I might need later?" The customer doesn't use your product to its full potential because they're rationing. Unlimited usage models create confidence. "I'll generate everything I need. I got great value. I'll definitely renew."

One customer cancels next year. The other renews. The difference is whether your pricing creates friction or removes it.

Design tiers so customers naturally graduate upward as they grow, not because the lower tier suddenly stops working.

Going public brings real advantages: team validation, customer credibility, quick capital access, and employee stock options that suddenly feel real instead of theoretical.

But going public also erodes founder control in a specific way. Shareholders become the majority owner. Their fiduciary duty is financial returns, not your vision of what the company should become. There's a gap between those two things.

Aconex experienced this directly. The company was shorted heavily by short sellers, who borrowed 20 percent of the stock, betting the price would fall. This wasn't a fundamental business problem. It was a market timing issue. The stock price got artificially depressed.

When prices are cheap, acquisitions become attractive. Oracle and another bidder saw the opportunity and made unsolicited offers. As a public company with public shareholders, the founders had a fiduciary duty. They couldn't just say no. They had to take attractive offers seriously and present them to shareholders.

Here's the reality founders don't always see about going public: you retain day-to-day operational control, while strategic control shifts toward the shareholder base. A private founder can say, "We're not selling." A public founder must say, "I recommend we consider this offer because it's above fair value" when the numbers warrant it.

Short sellers don't attack bad companies. They attack successful companies trading at attractive multiples. External market forces, not product issues, can accelerate exits you never anticipated. If you go public, understand you're now accountable to shareholders, not just yourself. Exits can be triggered by external factors, such as market conditions, activist investors, and short sellers, as much as by internal strategy.

This isn't inherently good or bad. It's simply how public markets work. Plan accordingly.

Founders often talk about scaling as if it's linear. In reality, it comes in distinct steps. There are specific inflection points where the rules change.

1-3M ARR: Pure founder hustle. This stage runs on will, sales skill, and product obsession; almost every founder can execute here. Most don't make it past, which reveals the difficulty of everything that follows.

3-10M ARR: The delegation wall arrives when founders need a sales team that doesn't pitch like them, processes that aren't just "what I do," and the ability to trust people executing to a standard rather than theirs. Many get stuck here.

10-30M ARR: Product and engineering maturity becomes non-negotiable. Cowboy operations don't work anymore. Serious customers demand quality systems, testing, and release management. The product can't remain a prototype.

30-100M ARR: The 100-person inflection point changes everything. Below 100, everyone knows each other and relies on shared culture and informal decision-making. Above 100, processes become necessary. The trap most founders fall into: creating "a process to define processes." The goal is a pragmatic process, not bureaucracy.

Many founders get stuck between 3 and 10 million because delegation is hard. Founders naturally want to do the work, but scaling requires delegating. The salespeople hired won't pitch like the founder; they'll use different language and hit different objections. But they have to be allowed to work their way, because holding on makes the founder the bottleneck that the company will struggle to get past.

"It's 90 percent psychology, 10 percent execution at this level," as Phillpot reflects. The founders who make it past 3 to 10 million are the ones comfortable watching someone else do their job worse, but still well enough, than they would. That's the hurdle.

The breakthrough occurs when you observe a sales rep successfully closing a deal using your approach, which was not initially successful but turned out to be better. That's when you know you've truly scaled. You've built something that doesn't depend on you anymore. It depends on the system and the people you've hired to execute it.

If you're between 3 and 10 million ARR and feeling stuck, the underlying issue usually isn't systems. It's delegation. Give your sales team the tools, positioning, and objection handling they need. Then let go.

Five decisions. Pricing design. Market selection. Tiering strategy. Public market mechanics. Delegation discipline.

None of these were obvious at the time. All of them mattered. They mattered because they all follow one principle: remove friction. Whether it's friction in your pricing model, friction in your go-to-market, or friction in your organizational structure, identify it and remove it.

That's the real insight behind a billion-dollar exit. It's less about a single breakthrough, or a lucky break, or perfectly timed market entry, even though timing helps. It's a founder who systematically removes friction from the systems that drive the business forward.

What's your biggest scaling challenge right now? Not the problem you think you should have. The problem you're actually living with daily.

Reply to this email and tell us. We'll respond, and we might feature your challenge in a future issue. These conversations often reveal the patterns that matter most.

The fragility of modern tech

The AI data center boom just got bigger

A cheat sheet for your next pitch

Together, they give you the full GTM playbook for construction tech from building trust-first marketing to structuring your sales motion, pricing models, and land-and-expand strategy.

Individually, each guide is $100. Today, you can get both for $150.