State of Construction Scheduling - 2025

Source: SmartPM

𝐖𝐡𝐨 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐲 

This report draws from 3,500+ survey responses across the construction industry. Over 70% of respondents work in practitioner or management roles directly tied to schedule execution: 

• 32% hold manager-level positions (e.g. Scheduling Manager, Superintendent) 

• 12% are technical staff (e.g. Scheduler, Planner, Analyst) 

• 16% are at the director or principal level • 13% hold senior-level roles (e.g. Senior Scheduler, Senior Consultant) 

• 13% represent executive leadership, such as CEOs, Presidents, or SVPs 

• 14% fall into other construction roles

​🇹​​🇭​​🇪​ ​🇪​​🇮​​🇬​​🇭​​🇹​ ​🇰​​🇪​​🇾​ ​🇫​​🇮​​🇳​​🇩​​🇮​​🇳​​🇬​​🇸​

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟏: 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 – 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐊𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐔𝐩

Only 12% of baseline schedules meet high-quality benchmarks

70% say schedules are “always” or “often” used in leadership decision-making.

By the time projects are 75% complete, fewer than 5% of schedules still meet high quality standards.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟐: 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡. 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭.
 

Over 70% of projects in our dataset missed their schedule targets (SPI <0.90)

When we asked the industry to rate their team’s schedule literacy, the average answer was 3.6 out of 5 – indicating people feel pretty confident about scheduling. However, when we looked into performance data, the reality didn’t match the perception. Out of 70,000 CPM schedules we analyzed, only 12% met bestpractice quality standards, leaving 88% falling short. This suggests most teams are working with schedules that don’t meet the structural criteria needed to manage a job effectively.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟑: 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝. 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫.
 

Over 44% of respondents say they spend 10+ hours per week on schedule reporting or reviews. That’s more than a full workday every single week.

In a high-stress environment with constant changes and tight deadlines, spending hours on reporting tasks can crowd out more strategic work: coordinating field progress, addressing risk early, and aligning teams. Manual reporting pulls energy into data wrangling instead of decision-making.

45% of updates changed actual start or finish dates.

1 in 3 updates had percent complete vs. duration discrepancies.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟒: 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐔𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐠 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝.
 

Only 1 in 4 respondents say their schedule updates are “rarely” late or incomplete. For the remaining 75%, updates are at least sometimes delayed, if not often. This delay can be costly. When the schedule doesn’t reflect what’s really happening on site, early warning signs go unnoticed. Risk surfaces, but it doesn’t always trigger a timely response.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟓: 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝
 

Most projects don’t start compressed. Early on, there’s usually enough float to absorb small issues, and the schedule (at least on paper) still looks feasible. But that doesn’t last. As projects progress beyond 50% completion, compression starts to build. In the final quarter, we see a spike in aggressive re-sequencing and acceleration tactics, signaling last-ditch recovery efforts when float has evaporated and risk has crystallized. While extreme compression (>25%) is common, it tends to cluster late in the schedule, when earlier delays have gone unaddressed and formal mitigation options are off the table.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟔: 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞.
 

When asked about the biggest challenges in scheduling today, professionals pointed to three consistent themes: 

• Lack of qualified staff 

• Poor data quality 

• Misalignment between the field and the office 

That last one is critical. The core purpose of a construction schedule is NOT to satisfy contracts or check boxes. It’s to connect assumptions made in the office with the reality unfolding on-site.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟕: 𝐑𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐢𝐬 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 
 

Across the 70,000 schedules we analyzed, a clear pattern emerged: delay isn’t random. It’s widespread, repeatable, and tied to structural weaknesses in how schedules are built, updated, and maintained. 

The data tells a unified story: 

• 76% of projects finished later than their original baseline 

• Only 12% of baseline schedules met best-practice quality standards 

• Less than 5% maintained that level of quality through project closeout

In other words, the risk is embedded from day one and rarely improves over time.

𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 #𝟖: 𝐀𝐈 𝐓𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐚𝐲𝐬

AI adoption is growing across construction, but not evenly. While many companies are exploring AI for workflows like takeoffs, RFPs, and document management, AI adoption for scheduling specifically remains limited. 

In our survey: 

• Only 16% of respondents said they’ve adopted AI or automation tools in scheduling 

• Another 24% said they plan to explore these tools this year 

• The remaining 60% report no current use and no plans to adopt 

That makes non-adoption the majority position in scheduling today, despite increasing awareness of its potential.