A new industry report reveals the growing disconnect between schedule confidence and performance, with systemic risks costing projects billions.

Construction scheduling is having a reckoning. After years of operating in the shadows as a compliance checkbox, project schedules are finally moving to center stage—but not for the reasons the industry hoped.

A comprehensive new report analyzing over 70,000 construction schedules reveals a sobering truth: while 70% of senior leadership relies on schedules for critical business decisions, only 12% of those schedules actually meet the quality standards needed for effective project management.

The findings, compiled by SmartPM in their "State of Construction Scheduling 2025" report, paint a picture of an industry caught between growing expectations and deteriorating performance. Based on analysis of tens of thousands of Critical Path Method (CPM) schedules combined with survey responses from over 3,500 construction professionals, the report exposes systemic flaws that are quietly undermining projects across the globe.

The Confidence Gap: Feeling Good While Falling Short

Perhaps the most striking revelation is the disconnect between perception and reality. When asked to rate their team's schedule literacy, construction professionals averaged 3.6 out of 5—indicating solid confidence in their scheduling capabilities. Yet the performance data tells a different story entirely.

"Teams equate schedule literacy with software fluency," the report notes, "but real literacy requires understanding critical path methodology, logic relationships, and float behavior." This fundamental misunderstanding has created a dangerous blind spot. While teams feel comfortable building and updating schedules in tools like Primavera P6 or Microsoft Project, they often lack the deeper knowledge needed to create schedules that truly control project work.

The consequences are measurable and severe. Over 70% of projects in the dataset missed their schedule targets, with a Schedule Performance Index below 0.90. More troubling still, these failures weren't primarily due to unforeseen field conditions—they stemmed from schedules that weren't properly structured from the beginning.

The Quality Decay Cycle

The report identifies a disturbing pattern: schedules that start weak only get worse over time. While just 12% of baseline schedules meet high-quality benchmarks, that number plummets to less than 5% by the time projects reach 75% completion. This degradation isn't accidental—it's the predictable result of poor updating practices and a lack of standardized procedures.

Analysis of updating practices reveals concerning inconsistencies. Over 45% of schedule updates included changes to actual start or finish dates—values that should remain fixed once recorded. Additionally, roughly one-third of updates showed discrepancies between reported progress and remaining durations, suggesting that percent completes are often adjusted to align with expectations rather than field conditions.

"When the schedule doesn't reflect what's really happening on site, early warning signs go unnoticed," the report warns. "Risk surfaces, but it doesn't always trigger a timely response."

‍

The Time Trap: High Investment, Unclear Returns

The scheduling burden on construction teams is heavier than many realize. Over 44% of survey respondents spend more than 10 hours per week on schedule reporting and reviews—equivalent to a full workday dedicated solely to scheduling activities. Yet when asked whether this time investment delivers value, only 58% could confidently say yes.

This time allocation problem reflects a broader issue with how the industry approaches scheduling. Rather than using schedules as dynamic coordination tools, many teams treat them as static reporting documents.

Manual reporting processes consume energy that could be directed toward strategic activities like early risk identification and team alignment.

The report suggests that this emphasis on over-reporting is symptomatic of deeper organizational issues. "In a high-stress environment with constant changes and tight deadlines, spending hours on reporting tasks can crowd out more strategic work," the authors note.

The Compression Trap: When Recovery Becomes Desperation

One of the report's most revealing findings concerns schedule compression—the practice of accelerating work to recover lost time. While compression can be a legitimate project management technique, the data shows it's more often a sign of earlier failures catching up.

Most projects don't start compressed. Initially, sufficient float typically exists to absorb minor issues, and schedules appear feasible on paper. However, as projects progress beyond 50% completion, compression begins to build. In the final quarter, there's a dramatic spike in aggressive re-sequencing and acceleration tactics—clear indicators of last-ditch recovery efforts when the float has evaporated and risk has crystallized.

The pattern is disturbingly consistent: delays show up early in project data, but formal schedule adjustments come late. Critical path delays often exceed changes to official end dates during the first half of projects, meaning the delay is visible in the logic while the schedule remains static.

By the time formal end-date revisions are made, typically beyond the halfway point, recovery opportunities have narrowed significantly.

"Compression is not a sign of optimization," the report concludes. "It's a red flag that risk wasn't acted on in time."

The Purpose Problem: Misaligned Expectations

A fundamental disconnect exists between what construction teams expect from their schedules and what their schedules can actually deliver. When asked what they would gain from better schedule data, respondents most commonly cited improved forecasting and risk mitigation capabilities. Yet the reality is that 88% of baseline schedules carry the medium-to-high risk of being ineffective for these very purposes.

This misalignment stems from treating schedules as compliance documents rather than coordination tools. The core purpose of a construction schedule isn't to satisfy contractual requirements or check regulatory boxes—it's to connect assumptions made during planning with the reality unfolding on-site. However, many teams continue to approach scheduling as a static exercise, updated for appearance rather than insight.

Field misalignment ranks among the top reported pain points, with professionals consistently identifying three critical challenges: lack of qualified staff, poor data quality, and misalignment between field operations and office planning. That last factor is particularly significant because it represents a fundamental breakdown in the schedule's primary function.

The Systemic Nature of Risk

Perhaps the report's most sobering conclusion is that project delays aren't anomalies—they're systematic outcomes of current industry practices. Across 70,000 schedules analyzed, delay patterns proved widespread, repeatable, and tied to structural weaknesses in how schedules are built, updated, and maintained.

The statistics are stark: 76% of projects finished later than their original baseline, while only 12% of baseline schedules met best-practice quality standards. Less than 5% maintained that quality level through project closeout. These aren't isolated problems, but interconnected patterns that reinforce each other: poor-quality baselines lead to inconsistent updates, which cause degradation in schedule logic, resulting in masked progress and late-stage compression.

"The risk is embedded from day one and rarely improves over time," the report states. "Project delay is not an anomaly. It's a consequence of how the industry operates today."

Technology Adoption: Cautious Progress

While artificial intelligence and automation tools are gaining traction across construction—particularly in areas like takeoffs, RFPs, and document management—adoption specifically for scheduling remains limited. Only 16% of survey respondents reported using AI or automation tools for scheduling, with another 24% planning to explore these technologies within the year.

The remaining 60% report no current use and no plans to adopt, making non-adoption the majority position in scheduling today. This hesitation may reflect the complexity of scheduling workflows, concerns about data quality, or simply the conservative nature of an industry that has traditionally been slow to embrace new technologies.

The Path Forward

The report's findings suggest that addressing construction scheduling challenges requires more than incremental improvements—it demands fundamental changes in how the industry approaches schedule development, maintenance, and utilization. Several key themes emerge:

First, the industry must distinguish between schedule software proficiency and genuine schedule literacy. Understanding how to operate scheduling tools is important, but true competency requires deep knowledge of critical path methodology, logic relationships, and risk behavior over time.

Second, organizations need to establish and enforce standardized updating practices. The current inconsistencies in how schedules are maintained not only reduce data quality but also erode trust in the schedule as a management tool.

Third, schedules must be designed as coordination tools rather than compliance documents. This means building schedules that reflect site conditions and support real-time decision-making, not just contractual milestones.

Ultimately, the industry should adopt automation and technology solutions that can alleviate manual reporting burdens while enhancing data quality and consistency. The time currently spent on administrative tasks could be redirected toward strategic analysis and proactive risk management.

Schedules as Strategic Assets

The construction industry stands at a crossroads. As projects become more complex and margins tighter, the need for reliable schedule data has never been greater. Yet the current state of scheduling practices is undermining rather than supporting project success.

The "State of Construction Scheduling 2025" report makes clear that this isn't a problem that will resolve itself. The patterns are too consistent, the risks too systemic, and the costs too high to ignore. Organizations that continue treating schedules as afterthoughts or compliance exercises will find themselves increasingly disadvantaged in a competitive marketplace.

However, those who invest in genuine schedule literacy, implement rigorous updating standards and embrace schedules as strategic coordination tools will gain significant advantages. Better schedules lead to better decisions, and these, in turn, ultimately result in fewer disputes, stronger outcomes, and more resilient businesses.

The data is clear: the construction industry's relationship with scheduling must evolve. The question isn't whether change is needed—it's whether organizations will act on these insights before their next project becomes part of the 76% that finish late.