For finance
For delivery
Is AEC’s challenge really the technology – or how it’s being adopted?
Stefanie Richter
Business Development & Microsoft Partnership Manager, sa.global
Over the last few years, conversations with architecture and engineering leaders have revealed growing frustration with their technology landscapes. What stands out is not regret about specific systems. Rarely does anyone say, “We chose the wrong ERP,” or “We picked the wrong CRM.” More often, the frustration shows up in quieter ways – in comments about complexity, workarounds, and the growing effort required just to get reliable information. The tools are there. The value, somehow, feels harder to reach.
What firms are beginning to realize is that the issue wasn’t the technology itself. It was the way technology decisions were made and, more importantly, how those decisions accumulated over time.
Between 2020 and 2025, many AEC firms were operating in response mode. Growth, labor constraints, new delivery models, and rising client expectations forced leadership teams to move quickly. Technology investments were often made to solve very real and immediate problems – introducing new CRM tools to improve visibility, implementing project systems to regain control, and building custom reports to satisfy leadership questions.
Each decision made sense on its own. What was often missing was a clearly defined end-state – a shared understanding of how all of these systems would eventually work together. As a result, many firms now find themselves managing a collection of tools rather than operating on a cohesive platform.
This is where the longer-term regret begins to surface.
When systems exist but don’t connect
Today, many AEC firms technically have the systems they need. ERP, CRM, project management, reporting – all present, all licensed, all in use. Yet teams still spend significant time exporting data, reconciling numbers, and validating reports before decisions can be made. Leadership discussions focus less on what the data is saying and more on whether it can be trusted at all.
Over time, this erodes confidence – not just in dashboards, but in the systems themselves. What firms are experiencing isn’t a technology failure. It’s the cumulative effect of disconnected adoption decisions.
Two forces, in particular, are accelerating the pressure.
- Leadership teams increasingly expect real-time visibility into projects, performance, and financials. Delayed or inconsistent data makes timely decision-making almost impossible.
- The industry’s growing focus on AI has exposed an uncomfortable reality: AI depends entirely on clean, connected, and governed data. When systems don’t share a common foundation, advanced analytics and AI capabilities remain out of reach – regardless of how promising the technology itself may be.
AI, in many ways, is simply revealing issues that already existed.
The regret firms didn’t anticipate
Looking back, many AEC leaders say they wish they’d approached things a little differently. It’s not that they moved too fast – or too slowly. It’s that they didn’t spend enough time defining where they were ultimately trying to go.
In practice, each new system increased dependency, complexity, and risk. Integrations became fragile. Customizations multiplied. And unwinding those decisions later began to feel more daunting than continuing forward – even when firms knew the current state wasn’t sustainable.
That’s why many firms still rely on manual workarounds today – exporting data, reconciling numbers in Excel, and depending on people to connect systems that were never designed to work together. Is that simply the cost of doing business – or a sign that something more fundamental needs to change?
What this means for AEC firms in 2026
As firms plan for the next phase of growth, the conversation is shifting. Instead of asking what tool to add next, leadership teams are starting to ask deeper questions: does our technology actually function as a platform? Can we trust our data without manual intervention? Are we building toward a future-ready foundation – or continuing to patch short-term gaps?
These questions don’t have simple answers. But they are increasingly unavoidable. And they are shaping how successful AEC firms are making technology decisions in 2026.
These themes – and the technology regrets AEC firms are openly discussing today – will be explored further in our upcoming live conversation with industry and platform experts from Microsoft and sa.global. This conversation is designed to be candid, practical, and focused on what firms would do differently if they were making these decisions again. More about webinar here
Stefanie Richter
Stefanie Richter is a recognized leader in business development and Microsoft partnership strategy, focused on enabling service-based firms to scale with purpose and clarity. At sa.global, she leads the firm’s go-to-market strategy for the Microsoft Service-Centric Cloud, working closely with engineering, legal, and consulting firms to navigate transformation. With a background in sales strategy, operational enablement, and change culture, Stefanie brings a human-first lens to every conversation – championing clarity, trust, and innovation. She’s also an active member of ACEC and a driving force behind Microsoft AI adoption in the AEC industry.