[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Saket Kalia of Barclays.

Andrew, I want to pick up on your last line of commentary there at the end, which I thought was interesting. And really through your prepared remarks, you talked about project intelligence a bit. And I want to loop that into some of your product families a bit. And maybe the specific question is, how does the operational data for MaintainX create what kind of seems like a data advantage for Autodesk AI when you combine it with the design, the build data that you have? Sorry, there's a lot there, but does that make sense?

Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. So first off, let me kind of just elaborate on project intelligence a little bit. There's a lot of decisions that happen in context of a project from design into make and construction or into manufacturing. All of these decisions have reasons. They have intent associated with them. Project intelligence captures all this in a continuous way. And what we're doing with MaintainX is we're actually extending that intelligence into the asset's life cycle, which means we're going to be able to capture information and data about how the asset functions in the real world. That is incredibly valuable data because the assets that we're talking about here, buildings, airports, conveyor belts, machines, they're all built by our customers. So that actually closes the loop on the asset cycle and on the context associated with that. So that's going to allow us to not only train on data about design processes and building processes and manufacturing processes, but also how assets are used and feed that back into the larger cycle. It just increases the value of the cycle overall for our customers.

Got it. Very helpful. Janesh, maybe for my follow-up for you. You talked a little bit about guidance philosophy in your prepared remarks. I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about maybe how we should think about the levels of prudence built into the Q3 and full year guide?

Saket, I'm happy to do that. So broadly speaking, our guidance philosophy remains unchanged. And just to recap that briefly, the guidance is grounded in the momentum of the business and what we know today. We reflect the opportunities we see and then we incorporate some level of prudence around the areas where there may still be some variability. So at the start of the year, our guidance had to contemplate a much wider range of outcomes, particularly around the impact of the sales reorganization on new business productivity. And 6 months into the year, the impact from the reorg has largely remained within the range we expected. Renewals have been very strong. The business has performed much better than our initial assumptions in many areas. And so we've reflected all of that in the outlook. We flowed through the first half revenue outperformance, and we've also raised our expectations for the back half in both billings and revenue based on what we've seen so far. There is naturally less uncertainty today compared to the past because we're only forecasting the remaining 6 months of the year. But at the same time, we've also got work ahead of us in the second half. We have our largest EBA renewal cohort, as you know, with a concentration in Q4. And we're also focused on the pace of new business productivity normalization, particularly in Western Europe. So the guide reflects that. It reflects the better visibility we have and the remaining work in the back half. But importantly, we've had a terrific first half. We are very pleased with the progress we've made so far, and we are very confident in our fiscal '27 outlook.

Our next question comes from the line of Joshua Tilton of Wolfe Research.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Maybe I'll stick with Janesh since he was on the line prior. First one is just give us a little bit of clarification. I think we're getting some inbounds on how much exactly was the revenue and the billings raised for the full year inorganically versus the organic contribution. I know that you gave us the inorganic contribution dollars in the press release, but can you just help us fully clarify the math on just by how much organically you raised revenue and billings for the full year?

Yes, I'm happy to, Josh. So maybe I'll just start with billings. The underlying billings outlook improved by about 2 percentage points. 1 percentage point of that comes from MaintainX, which is approximately $70 million and roughly 1 percentage point comes from the stronger underlying performance that we had in the business. There's an offset on that, which is we had a little bit of headwind from currency and transactional model mix. And so that offsets about 1 percentage point. So netting those 2 translate to about a 1 percentage point improvement. So said another way, when you think about our prior guidance, excluding the new transaction model and excluding currency, that prior guide was 8% to 9% year-over-year growth. Now that has increased to 9% to 10% year-over-year growth on an organic basis and tack on 1 percentage point for MaintainX, so that's 10% to 11% year-over-year growth. So that's the underlying increase in terms of the billings. And then in terms of the revenue, you saw that we had a pretty healthy outperformance in Q2, which we've then flowed through to the rest of the year. And the specific contribution from MaintainX on [ billings is only $60 million ], and we've raised our organic revenue number by much more than that, as you can see from the direct math there.

Super helpful. And then maybe one for Andrew, and I preface the question with -- you can't answer along the lines of we can't pick between our favorite children type answers. But I couldn't help but notice that M&E is getting put into a bucket called other, and all the other segments seem to have a very nice representative name. Is there any reason investors should take that as a signal of maybe less strategic focus on that area of the business than you might have previously had?

No, you shouldn't. Look, the M&E business is definitely going under a lot of changes. It's going through a lot of transformations here. But the structure of the M&E business, the high-end studios, what they need from us, that work is continuing. We've actually extended our product portfolio in very interesting ways for this segment. They are embracing Flow Capture, some of the tools in Flow Studio. So our higher-end business is definitely embracing the new technologies are going. And we're also expanding the business to grab the new creator economy that's kind of building around that. That's where Flow Studio leads. So there's nothing you should read into that other than it's just a smaller business. It's easier to capture it in an Other bucket with the operations solution. That's all you should read.

Super helpful. Congrats on great quarter.

Thanks Josh.

Our next question comes from the line of Adam Borg of Stifel.

Maybe the first question, Andrew, just on MaintainX, obviously, the deal now closed. Kind of what's been early customer feedback on your move to go deeper into operations? And maybe talk about the top R&D and sales and marketing priorities now that it's closed? And then I have a follow-up after.

Yes. So let me talk about customer reaction in general. When you look at a lot of our customers, especially in the general contracting space and even in the architecture space and certainly in the manufacturing space, they're all very interested in either improving operations internally for themselves or extending their businesses into operations in some way. Having Autodesk help them do that and having Autodesk do it in such a way that we've closed the loop around design, make and operate is very attractive to a certain segment of our customer base. And they're looking into this and engaging with us on some of these things. We're also seeing lots of synergies with our enterprise accounts. And I think you'll continue to see that just like we did with construction. In terms of where we're at with the integration, it's very early. We just closed the acquisition early in August. Our main focus right now is on integrating the back office and maintaining the momentum in the business. And that's where our goals are right now. As you look forward, we're certainly going to have synergies in the business, like I said, around the enterprise accounts. We're going to be able to bring MaintainX into those accounts very much like we did in construction. And similar to construction, we're going to be able to bring the MaintainX business to Europe. Another thing that's also a significant opportunity here is MaintainX has been primarily focused on the manufacturing sector. We can bring them more robustly into the AEC sector. And all of that is on top of the new virtuous cycle we're going to be building around design, make and operate. That gives you a sense for where we're at and some of the reactions.

That's really helpful. And at the end of your prepared remarks, when you talked about kind of the AI platform, the platform you're building and the AI advantages, you did also talk about you're building your own AI models, which I'm sure we'll hear more about at AU in a couple of weeks. But I think you also talked about there are roles for frontier models as well. So I'd love to hear how you're thinking about and I'm sure this will evolve over time. But today, how do you think about the role of Autodesk built NeuralCAD models versus frontier models and both as you think about design and make?

Yes. So what our customers need, Adam, is they need fast answers that are accurate. By accurate, I mean precise, especially in our world. It's a built world. I've often said that probably right is wrong in our world, but they also need cost-effective solution. So what we're looking to do is we're looking to use the right model for the job. And that's going to include a full breadth of different types of models. We're not locked into any one type of model. We'll use a frontier model where it's appropriate for a particular type of answer the customer may need. We'll use one of our models when a precise kind of data-driven answer associated with direct context into what they're designing and making is appropriate. And we'll use other models where we see appropriate in order to drive the right kind of cost-effective behavior for our customers. And we'll do this in such a way that we're always leveraging the data we have, the context we have about the customer, and we're packaging it in an experience that actually makes sense for design and make. When you bring all of those things together, you get a sense for what we're doing. We're going to bring the right tools to the right problem at the right time to the customer, but it's always, always about using our data, our context and the experience we deliver to our customer to get fast, accurate and cost-effective answers.

Our next question comes from the line of Jay Vleeschhouwer of Griffin Securities.

Andrew, for you first. Your comments about project intelligence were exactly what I had in mind to ask you about based on your recent article on LinkedIn. The question there is actually twofold. One part of that is it's a very AEC bias-oriented comment thus far. How do you see taking that technology or that concept into manufacturing? And does the fact that you have much lower market share in manufacturing than you do in AEC perhaps influence how you're thinking about that? And then the other project intelligence part of that question before I turn it to Janesh is does this whole concept in any way have any implications for product packaging? You've been very bundles and collections oriented to date. I mean, does that necessarily have to change?

So first off, let me address the question around project intelligence and AEC. Projects exist everywhere. Every manufactured product is a project inside of the company. They'll call it a project. They'll have a project code name, right? So project is a generic term for capturing the entire life cycle of information flow from design through either construction or manufacturing all the way into the operations of the asset. So this is not something that is reserved to the AEC space nor is it intended to be reserved to the AEC space in our framing. In fact, frankly, some of the deepest usage we're seeing with some of our AI is in our manufacturing product set, Fusion in particular. Fusion is continuing to enjoy robust growth, partly because we've closed the loop for an entire project from design to manufacturing and now engaging into operations, especially in the factory world. So this is not something targeted at AEC in any way, shape or form, and it certainly is relevant to what's going on in manufacturing. On our product packaging, we've said many times over time that you're going to see us evolving from task-based automations to workflow-based automations all the way up to system level automations for our customers. Ultimately, what you're seeing us move to is the industry clouds, Fusion, Forma and Flow is the main way we deliver capabilities to our customers. Subscriptions are still going to be highly relevant for those customers. But over time, as we move into deeper workflow automations, deeper automations around systems, you're going to see us get involved in more and more consumptive efforts. That obviously changes the way people consume the functionality within Fusion, Forma and Flow in the future. And you should expect as this evolution progresses, customers are more exposed to the functionality and the capabilities from Autodesk, bringing to bear what they need and what they need to accomplish to the table and bringing the right functionality there at the right time. You'll probably hear a little bit more about this AU.

Okay. For Janesh, any meaningful update with regard to usage telemetry that is in terms of geos or verticals, collection versus stand-alone, any sort of metrics around that set of data?

Jay, I'd say, overall, we are seeing pretty healthy engagement across the board. That is very consistent with the strength that we delivered across the business. We see that across geos, verticals as well as the individual products. But I would be a little bit careful not to over-interpret any one signal just because usage can be influenced by things like project timing and seasonality and mix and so forth. But the broad patterns that we are seeing are very consistent and similar to what we've seen earlier. And the uplift dynamics suggest that customers are continuing to deepen their adoption over time. So we're very pleased with that.

Our next question comes from the line of Joe Vruwink of Baird.

Congrats, Amy, on a great career. I think by now, I've lost count of all the [indiscernible] one-shotting and CAD videos I've watched. They're all fun. But I think most often, when I look at the CAD environment, it tends to be Fusion, which is the one actually doing the magic. So I guess my question is whether you've seen evidence of user growth accelerating for applications like Fusion that have MCP connections into an LLM environment?

What I will say is the Fusion business is doing quite well. We're very happy with the results for Fusion. We're seeing not only continued growth in user acquisition, continued growth in ACV and revenue, but we're also seeing continued growth in multi-seat purchases, which is exactly what we want to see. The reasons for this are very clear. We've been very deliberate in leading with some of the new automations, leading with MCP connectors. All of these things you're seeing in the ecosystem, people using various tools with Fusion are quite deliberate and quite intentional on our part in terms of driving the strategy. We've been very AI forward with Fusion and not only with regards to the ecosystem, but also with regards to the functionality we develop. And like I said earlier, our customers on the Fusion side are some of the most deeply engaged with our assistant and the AI features inside the product. This is absolutely a tailwind to Fusion growth, and we expect that tailwind to continue.

Great. And then hoping you can comment on your approach to API pricing and how thinking has evolved. I think there were some tweaks recently here in August where you listened to customer feedback and maybe changed some of the timing. Just curious kind of what the feedback has been and how you're thinking about this going forward?

Yes. I think that's a great question. Customers are very much aware that we're going to be charging for APIs and machine-based usage. We've actually already charged for some of that usage. We do listen to customers. We do adjust some of our time lines and our intent to make sure that we're matching with customer expectations and customer ramp-up times, but continue to look for us to charge for access to machine-driven usage to our capabilities, our IP and our products. That's not going to change.

Our next question comes from the line of Brent Thill of Jefferies.

Many of your software peers are unveiling AI revenue. I don't know if it's important to you, maybe it's found in other ways. But how do you think about the impact? And is this something you expect that you want to talk about going forward?

Yes. I want to go back to the framework for AI monetization that we rolled out last year, right, around task-based automation, workflow automation and systems level automation. Right now, what we're doing is we're enabling lots of task-based automation in the product, lots of AI-driven automation. It's basically built into some of the subscription offerings we have. And like I've said, it's actually a tailwind to Fusion growth right now. People notice what we're doing and they like it, and it's a very active point of conversation in the Fusion community. I think you should look at the task-based automation as not only a lubricant, but an accelerant to some of the subscription-based businesses as we move forward, and we'll treat it as such. But as time goes on and we move deeper into workflow automation, systems level automation, you're going to see us start to express more consumptive revenue. That will show up through Flex business and other things that are also embedded in how we're reporting in our industries. So look for us to evolve these things over time. We're not trying to do one-off presentations on some of these things. We're trying to drive real value in our business with our customers through our work on project intelligence. Janesh, do you want to add anything?

No, I think that's a good summary.

And for Janesh, I know you're calling for gross margins to be flat. Many of the other companies we all follow are seeing some compression because of AI. I guess what you're saying is you can embrace some of these tasks and still keep GMs flat?

We can this year, Brent, and that's what we've factored into the model. Over time, as the AI-based workloads and offerings continue to grow, those will be gross profit dollars accretive but they will put a little bit of compression on gross margin. But that's one of the things that we had also factored into our long-term operating margin target when we rolled that out. So that is embedded in the 41% margin target for FY '29.

Our next question comes from the line of Elizabeth Porter of Morgan Stanley.

So first, I wanted to continue on the line of some of the pricing dynamics. And I believe in early June, you lowered the Flex in minimum purchase from $300 to $99 to make it more accessible for SMBs. So while it's still early, I'd love to better understand what you're seeing thus far, whether any changes in new logo activation, repeat token purchases or lower checkout abandonment, how the change can be economically accretive?

Yes. So we are actually seeing downmarket changes in adoption based on those Flex changes. The customers really wanted access -- that was a customer-driven change. Customers wanted access to tokens in smaller bundles that matched how they were going to work. We view this as part of the long-term strategy around Flex, integrating Flex deeper into our business, allowing customers to access all the capabilities in the portfolio and also allowing them to mix and match how they drive occasional use of one product versus deep usage of their other products. So yes, we have seen some acceleration in adoption of Flex, and it has been net accretive to the business, which is great. That will be something we continue to do on an ongoing basis. So watch that space over time.

Great. And then just as a follow-up, on this sales reorganization, what are some of the leading indicators that you're seeing now in terms of rep productivity, pipeline creation or some of the time to ramp that improved in Q2? And maybe what are some of the ones that you're still looking to turn the corner? And how are you looking at signs just to confirm that the disruption has weakened more of that risk is actually behind us now?

Yes. So Elizabeth, I'll kind of echo what Janesh said in his opening commentary. One of the places we've seen actual real productivity increases, and it was one of the places we were targeting is the renewal business. Our renewals are much more productive now, both internally and through the channel partners. And that was a major goal of what we were trying to do is move -- increase productivity of the renewal business, shift more effort into expansion business, new business generation in both the channel and internally inside the company. We've also seen all the green shoots associated with the expansion business internally and with the channel. The one area that Janesh highlighted is, and this is because of consultation periods and all the things associated with mature Europe, it's been a little slower to ramp up on the expansion business. We're seeing the signs. We're seeing continued growth in pipeline associated with kind of forward-looking indicators that tell us we're moving in the right direction. But that's the dynamics right now. We're seeing exactly what we expected with a slower buildup in mature Europe.

And maybe, Elizabeth, the one thing I would add to that is in terms of the specific measures that you look for with respect to new business productivity, it's -- our sellers able to make their plan and how are they ramping against their plan. And we saw that -- we saw strength in that in Q2 in most of the areas around the world where they were much closer to plan, and it's a lot better than it was in Q1.

Our next question comes from the line of Jason Celino of KeyBanc Capital Markets.

I just wanted to ask about your EBA visibility. I think in the prepared remarks, Janesh, you said that this was kind of a factor of maybe varying scenarios of what you could see this year. I'm curious like as we approach the second half, what types of renewal activity or expansion activity you're seeing with some of your cohorts?

Jason, fiscal '27 includes our largest EBA renewal cohort, and there's a big concentration of those EBAs in Q4. And if I think about that in terms of just cohort dynamics, you'll recall that last year, we had the biggest product subscription renewal cohort, and we also had our second largest EBA cohort. So there are some -- it does create a little bit of a tough year-on-year comp in terms of the size of the renewal cohorts in the back half of the year. What I'd say is the prior full year outlook already reflected all of these cohort dynamics, and we've executed really well so far in terms of business that we closed in Q2 and preparation for the back half, and that gave us the confidence to raise the outlook for the year on billings even on an underlying basis.

I see. Okay. And then maybe it's more of an irrelevant point. I know you reiterated your operating margin guide. But now that MaintainX has closed, curious what might be the operating margin impact in the quarter of the year or maybe historically what the margin profile looked like before you acquired it?

MaintainX is a high-growth business when we acquired it and still is. And consistent with many high-growth businesses, as you might imagine, the business was not profitable. And so as we bring MaintainX into Autodesk, our main focus is to ensure that we do everything that we can to continue to preserve the strong growth rate and continue to fuel the engine. So MaintainX does present a drag on operating margin in fiscal '27. And then next year, we'll have the full year annual cost of MaintainX from an operating perspective and also in terms of the net financing costs. But despite that, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, as I think about next year, we do expect that we will increase the operating margin next year from the 39% that we have this year.

Our next question comes from the line of Taylor McGinnis of UBS.

So you've done a nice job sustaining a consistent level of growth. But as we look beyond FY '27, Autodesk is going to start to lap a few tailwinds related to the model change and the transition to annual billings and a couple of the larger renewal cohorts that you talked about, which have all been beneficial to underlying growth. So as we think about that, is it possible that, that at some point starts to become a headwind to billings growth? And if not, maybe you could just talk about the incremental growth drivers that you're excited about that could help support the growth durability that we've seen?

Taylor, this is Janesh. Maybe I'll take that question. So as we think about fiscal '28, there's a number of different moving parts, as you mentioned, and it's a little bit early to talk about '28, but I'll at least just highlight some of those moving parts for you. First off, as you know, fiscal '27 has some benefit from the new transaction model that will not recur in fiscal '28. So that's one factor to consider. And '28 will also include the full year contribution from MaintainX, as I just mentioned, both in terms of the top line as well as the expenses. We'll also have the continued normalization of new business productivity where -- as we continue to get better in Western Europe and the rest of the world, that will ultimately be a driver of the business for us. But underneath all of those moving pieces, the core drivers of the business remain strong. Renewals are strong, EBAs are strong. We are seeing sustained demand across areas like construction and infrastructure and industrial. We're excited about the opportunities in operations, both in terms of organic as well as continuing to build on the MaintainX acquisition. So all of those factors, the consistent execution that we've had as a company for a while now for the past few years and that we're delivering here in fiscal '27, I think all of those underlying drivers will help us continue to sustain strength into '28 as well. We'll obviously give you a more full picture of all of the moving parts and timing and mix impacts and so forth when we get to that point. But the important piece for now is that fiscal '27 is playing out nicely. We've raised our guidance on both billings and on revenue, and we feel very good about the underlying momentum of the business.

Our next question comes from the line of Ken Wong of Oppenheimer & Company.

Andrew, I wanted to circle back to MaintainX. So now that you guys are integrating it into the business, how should we think about some of the go-to-market motions that might need to be tweaked? How much of the direct sales force will be impacted? Is this something that you guys will be able to push through your partner network? Any color there and the possibility of any disruptions from the integration that you guys are baking into the guidance?

Yes. We certainly bake lots of things into the guidance to make sure that we're prudent in terms of what we tell you. At a high level, there's -- we're going to -- short-term goal is maintain the momentum in the business. Very clear, okay? We want to make sure that we maintain the momentum of business. It's a good business. It's adding customers at a nice clip. We want to maintain some of that -- like I said earlier, just like what we did in construction, the enterprise account business is an immediate opportunity for synergies with regards to engaging deeper with some of those customers and getting MaintainX into some of those accounts. Frankly, they're not in those accounts. So I think there's a big opportunity there, and we want MaintainX to be able to exploit that avenue in terms of getting to our customers. They've also built a great product-led machine that's targeting customers and new account acquisition. We want to maintain and leverage that machine for Autodesk, not only for MaintainX but broadly across the Autodesk portfolio and look for us to do that because that expertise is valuable and their product-led growth motion works incredibly well. Partners are absolutely going to be an opportunity here. Partners are going to be interested in this, especially as we start expanding the business into Europe. We'll probably be looking at motions with regards to engaging our partners. Again, very similar to what we did with construction. So look for us to basically copy some of the motions we did in the early days of construction when we bought PlanGrid, when we bought BuildingConnected, but also learn from some of those motions and actually accelerate them faster than we did back in the days of construction.

Got it. Super helpful. Janesh, I want to touch on that prior point you made about slight margin improvement in fiscal '28. I recall you guys had embedded not necessarily MaintainX specifically, but the possibility of M&A into the guidance kind of this year and longer term. Should we think something similar for '28 that should you guys kind of bundle on something on top of MaintainX after the fact that, that slight margin improvement has some cushion?

Ken, the way I would think about future acquisitions and the impact of those is just to go back to our overall approach in terms of operations. We are following the same playbook as we did in construction, where we laid down a cornerstone acquisition and then built around that with smaller tuck-in acquisitions. And for us in operations, MaintainX was that cornerstone acquisition and future acquisitions will probably be smaller in size, and we'll just build around that. So I would look at the fiscal '28 guidance on operating margin more specifically when we get to that point. But I would expect at this point that it will be an improvement over the 39% that we've laid out here for you today.

Our next question comes from the line of Matt Martino of Goldman Sachs.

Andrew, maybe to start with you. As Autodesk moves from task level AI towards broader workflow automation, what in your mind are the key technology and data unlocks still required? And where do you believe the platform is furthest along today?

Yes. The key thing that drives the workflow automation is what we're building into the Assistant. The Assistant is kind of the integration layer that allows us to bring the context we have about what the customer is doing at each spot and also bring the right models to bear. So the more that the users engage with the Assistant, the deeper they engage with Assistant, the more workflow-driven automations we introduce in. You'll see some indications of that at AU, but the front door for these things is the Assistant and its agentic layers that we've built out there. The deeper the usage there, the more you're going to see us extending into the workflow side of the expansion there. And what was the second part of your question? I'm sorry. Could you repeat that, Matt?

Yes, where the platform is furthest along today?

Okay. Fusion is definitely one of the areas where we've invested quite a bit of effort to get the platform integrating various capabilities. The Assistant, obviously, is part of the core platform that's built across horizontally across Autodesk. But Fusion has definitely moved aggressively to deliver value through the Assistant so that the customers can start to look at workflow type automations and actually engage in workflow type transactions. I think you'll see some of those showing up first in Fusion.

Great. And if I could just slip in a quick one on the macro, Andrew. The broader construction backdrop has been fairly uneven, but Forma for Construction seems to be showing pretty good momentum here. So maybe just unpack sort of what's driving that resilience and where you're beginning to see maybe even early signs of improvement across some of these pockets of the end market.

So we're super happy with our construction business. It's growing north of 20%. We like what we see. I want to be super clear about a few things here. We're very diversified. We're diversified globally. We're diversified across all the segments of construction. That diversification is an absolute strength. The other thing is construction is kind of reverting back to the mean in terms of backlogs. We're completely fine with that because the real underlying driver of growth is not the oscillations in the various metrics you're seeing. It's the fact that the penetration of technology in construction is so low right now. What's driving our business right now is people like what we're doing. They like what they're getting from design and make integration. They like what we're doing with preconstruction. They're adopting technology at higher rates because technology allows them to deal with their backlog to unlock their capacity and be able to build things more sustainably across the whole spectrum of customer types that we serve. That's the underlying thing here is the technology adoption cycle. It's not the ups and downs of what you see with various metrics in the construction space.

Our next question comes from the line of Tyler Radke of Citi.

Maybe just at a high level, like with these disclosure changes, Janesh, I guess, why now? Why sort of midway through the year? And I think there's a lot of good momentum in the construction business. You talked about a leading organization choosing Autodesk Construction this quarter. So can you just be a little bit more specific on how you'll be updating us on the progress of that and the metrics that you'll share?

Tyler, I'm happy to. In terms of the why now, it's really got to do with the launch of the operations business, right? With closing of MaintainX, we needed to revisit our product family reporting. So that's the short answer on the why now. But as I think about that design and make, ultimately, our focus is on driving convergence across design, make and operate. And the more successful we are with that strategy, the less sense it makes to have discrete buckets on design and make or anything else. So construction is reported today under the make business, but even that doesn't entirely capture all the construction business. And so it's really important for us to make sure that as we move forward, we are providing you with a view on how the underlying businesses are performing. So we will provide you with regular updates on that business. It will be regular commentary. Just like we have today, we will tell you how the business has been growing. It's growing north of 20% and has done for some time. And then specific to Fusion and operations, we'll also provide you with regular commentary on those. And then as I said, we will provide MaintainX revenue for 4 quarters to give you visibility into how that business is doing.

Great. And on the MaintainX front, just sort of thinking about your goals from a financial perspective and synergies. I think at the time of the acquisition, you talked about 50% plus growth, $135 million or so of ARR, if I'm not mistaken. Like is your goal to meaningfully reaccelerate that? Obviously, you don't want to disrupt a lot of the momentum they have. But at the same time, you have massive distribution and probably a lot of customers that are -- could get value by deploying MaintainX. So how should we just think about those revenue synergy goals over the next couple of years?

Yes. MaintainX already has very strong stand-alone growth momentum, Tyler. And for us, the strategic value that it gives us is the new operational entry point into teams that are responsible for maintaining and operating assets every day. I think there's multiple vectors in terms of revenue synergy opportunities. The first is extending MaintainX through our global reach across customers of all sizes. So there's significant geographic opportunities in terms of expansion. But there's also opportunity with many of our larger enterprise customers and elevating MaintainX's presence in those accounts. We also see the ability to extend across different industries. A lot of MaintainX's customers today are more manufacturing-centric, but there's a massive opportunity across AEC as well. And then ultimately, connecting operations workflows through the Design and Make Platform into operate and closing that full life cycle, so customers can manage across the entire life cycle. And all of those things help us. In addition to that, we talked about the benefits in terms of how that accelerates our overall AI strategy as well. So there's all of those revenue synergy vectors. But as you mentioned, I think the most important piece for us is to make sure that we first preserve the existing growth rate and that we very thoughtfully and deliberately expand over time across these vectors to continue to deliver greater growth in that business.

Thank you. That is all the time we have for Q&A today. I would now like to turn the conference back to Simon Mays-Smith for closing remarks.

Thanks, Latif, and thanks, everyone, for joining us. We'll look forward to seeing many of you on the road or at conferences over the coming weeks. If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or my team. Thanks very much.

This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.