Construction managers who don’t adopt AI tools when managing mid-project changes face higher project delays and dispute escalation compared with those who do.
That’s according to research from the PlanRadar Construction Survey Report 2026, which surveyed 1,728 professionals.
Mid-project changes are a common challenge for construction managers internationally. Nearly three-quarters of those in the report said approvals were often received after agreed timeframes.
One in four estimated that approval delays typically added a month to project timelines. And two out of three said mid-project changes led to project overruns in many or most of their projects.
More than a third failed to recover these costs, absorbing them instead. Yet, the research suggested this was not inevitable. Nearly seven out of 10 respondents who could easily track the responsible party for mid-project changes said they were able to successfully recover these costs.
Operational burden
The report finds: “Whilst formal disputes may be rare, teams frequently face the burden of reconstructing project events.
“Only 5% of respondents say they never need to reconstruct project history for disputes or claims, demonstrating that nearly everyone faces this operational burden regardless of whether issues formally escalate.”
A senior project manager from Austria is quoted in the report saying: “Redirecting costs mid-project is straightforward enough, but whether the party actually responsible is held accountable in the end is another matter entirely.
“In most cases, rarely is only one party at fault. A degree of responsibility must be determined across multiple parties.”
More than half of those surveyed have adopted a central digital tool to track mid-project changes. The barriers for those who have not yet done this appear to be organisational and commercial, and not due to technical reasons.
Within that group, four out of five said adopting a central digital tool to track mid-project changes gave them an improved ability to control costs or protect project margins.
The picture on documentation, however, was more complex. The survey found that eight out of 10 had half of their documentation stored across unconsolidated channels such as email, texts and phone calls, suggesting that a centralised tool was only part of the solution.
Speed and confidence
However, respondents who could easily locate documentation were found to be twice as likely to feel confident demonstrating who was responsible for delays and cost impact. Those who lacked confidence faced a 75% higher risk of above-average dispute escalation.
Non-adopters of AI were 1.3 times more likely to experience month-long project delays, and 1.7 times more likely to have difficulty finding documentation when preparing for claims.
Among digital adopters, more than a third already have AI integrated into their tools, and two-thirds report savings of at least two hours per week per project on administrative tasks. Other benefits to AI adoption include faster approvals and responses.
