PRIMARY OPERATING CASE · EVIDENCE STATUS DISCLOSED
How an AGI B2B Operation Scaled From $35M to $150M+ in Revenue
A multi-year AGI Brazil country-operation transformation across GTM, channels, commercial organization, operating cadence, and P&L priorities.
INITIAL SITUATION
Growth required an operating system, not one sales tactic
The AGI Brazil operation needed stronger commercial structure, clearer channel execution, disciplined management cadence, and closer connection between revenue decisions and P&L priorities. The work treated market choices, people, partners, pricing, and financial accountability as one system.
ANDRE'S ROLE
Direct leadership and ownership of the number
Andre Magrini held direct commercial leadership responsibility across sales organization, channel strategy, operating execution, and P&L priorities. This page distinguishes public operating claims from details that still require company authorization.
TRANSFORMATION SEQUENCE
What changed as the operation scaled
Clarified market constraints, organization, channel performance, management gaps, and financial priorities.
Restructured commercial organization, partner execution, leadership cadence, and accountability.
Expanded proven motions while connecting resource allocation and commercial decisions to the P&L.
KPIS BEFORE AND AFTER
Evidence register
| KPI | Before | After | Public evidence status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | Approximately $35M | More than $150M | Public operating claim attributed to AGI; supporting documentation pending written authorization |
| Commercial organization | Structure required redesign | Rebuilt for scale | Scope publicly described; organization chart not published |
| Channel execution | Required stronger structure | Restructured and managed | Scope publicly described; partner-level data confidential |
| Pricing and margin | Not publicly documented | Not publicly documented | No unsupported figure published |
| Forecast accuracy | Not authorized | Not authorized | Earlier conflicting figures removed pending source validation |
KEY LEARNINGS
What transfers to another B2B company
- Revenue scale is a cross-functional operating result.
- Channels require governance, economics, enablement, and inspection.
- Commercial priorities must be connected to P&L choices.
- Management cadence converts strategy into repeated decisions.
- Capability transfer matters more than dependence on one executive.
LIMITATIONS
What this case does not claim
This historical result is not a forecast or guarantee. Exact dates, pricing data, forecast metrics, and supporting documents will be added only when disclosure is authorized and the sources are internally consistent.
Diagnose the system behind the number.
Start with the revenue fingerprint, not a copied playbook.
Request an AI Revenue DiagnosticWhich external evidence provides context?
Vendux reports an average assignment length of 9.7 months in its 2025 fractional sales leadership data, useful context for why operating transformation requires sustained cadence.
OPERATING ARCHITECTURE
How was the growth problem framed?
The starting question was not simply how to sell more. It was how to make market choices, commercial organization, channel execution, management cadence, and P&L priorities reinforce one another. Revenue could not be treated as a sales-department output detached from operating capacity, partner economics, leadership behavior, and resource allocation.
The AGI Brazil case therefore represents a country-operation transformation, not a campaign attribution claim. Andre held direct commercial leadership responsibility and participated in the operating decisions behind the number. Public disclosure supports the broad revenue range and scope of responsibility. Customer-level data, contracts, pricing, margins, forecasts, organization charts, and partner economics remain confidential or require written authorization.
What was diagnosed before the operating model changed?
The diagnostic lens examined where commercial evidence was produced, how opportunities moved, where channels added or obscured value, how leaders inspected execution, and whether financial priorities were visible in daily commercial decisions. The objective was to identify constraints that could not be repaired by adding activity alone.
| Operating layer | Question tested | Decision evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Market focus | Where could AGI create defensible value rather than generic coverage? | Customer requirements, use cases, competitive alternatives, and buying conditions |
| Commercial organization | Were roles, authority, coaching, and accountability designed for scale? | Decision ownership, manager cadence, opportunity inspection, and execution gaps |
| Channels | Which partners created access and capability, and which only created apparent coverage? | Account overlap, active opportunities, enablement, economics, and contribution |
| Revenue management | Could leadership distinguish buyer evidence from internal optimism? | Stage criteria, next steps, risk, aging, and forecast review |
| P&L priorities | Did commercial choices reflect resources, margin, capacity, and investment tradeoffs? | Allocation decisions, operating commitments, and financial consequences |
What changed in the management system?
The transformation required a repeatable rhythm for reviewing evidence, assigning decisions, and following execution across sales and channels. The purpose of cadence was not meeting volume. Each review needed to produce a decision, an owner, a deadline, and a record of what changed. That discipline made constraints visible early enough to act.
Commercial roles and partner relationships were evaluated against the work required by the market. Instead of assuming that every territory, seller, or channel should be managed identically, the operating model connected coverage to customer needs, buying complexity, service requirements, and the evidence available. P&L responsibility forced tradeoffs to be explicit: resources assigned to one market, partner, or initiative were resources unavailable elsewhere.
How should another CEO interpret the result?
The transferable lesson is the architecture, not the revenue multiple. Another company may face a different market, product, team, capital position, brand, regulatory environment, or starting maturity. A responsible diagnostic therefore recreates the evidence process rather than copying AGI decisions.
| Transferable principle | What must be company-specific | How to test it |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue is cross-functional | Which functions constrain the current motion | Map the decision path from demand through delivery and expansion |
| Channels need governance | The partner model, economics, and customer role | Compare active contribution with claimed coverage |
| Forecasts require independent evidence | Stage definitions and buying signals | Audit a sample of opportunities against customer-produced evidence |
| Cadence converts strategy into action | Meeting frequency, participants, and authority | Track whether reviews produce decisions and completed commitments |
| Scale requires capability transfer | Permanent roles and team maturity | Test whether the system operates without one executive in every decision |
What evidence will not be fabricated?
This page deliberately leaves several cells unpublished. A missing authorized figure is more credible than a precise number without a source. Forecast accuracy, margin movement, pricing changes, customer concentration, partner-level performance, and exact dates will be added only when supporting documents are aligned and disclosure is authorized. The absence of those figures limits causal attribution, so the case does not claim that one isolated action produced the full revenue change.
The current evidence supports three statements: the company was AGI Brazil; Andre held direct commercial leadership responsibility across the areas described; and the operation grew from approximately $35M to more than $150M over a multi-year period. Everything beyond that is separated into operating description, confidential context, or pending evidence.
How would the case be applied in a new engagement?
A new mandate begins with the client's own baseline: market, product, pipeline, stage conversion, forecast variance, channels, customer retention, team capacity, gross margin, and management cadence. The first deliverable is a constraint map and evidence register. The second is a 90-day operating plan with named owners and review rules. The third is a decision about what to stop, repair, scale, or transfer.
This protects the client from a common consulting failure: importing a successful historical playbook without proving that the same mechanism exists in the new company. The AGI case demonstrates operating experience. The diagnostic determines relevance.
CASE FAQ
Questions about the AGI operating case
Which company is the $35M to $150M+ case from?
The case is the AGI Brazil operation. It describes a multi-year transformation across commercial organization, channel execution, management cadence, and P&L priorities.
What was Andre Magrini responsible for?
Andre held direct commercial leadership responsibility across the sales organization, channel strategy, operating execution, and P&L priorities described in the case.
Does the case guarantee the same result for another company?
No. It is historical operating evidence, not a forecast or guarantee. Results depend on market conditions, company maturity, resources, execution, and the constraints identified in the diagnostic.
Why are some figures not published?
Exact dates, partner-level data, pricing information, and certain operating metrics remain confidential or require supporting documentation and written authorization before publication.