Buildots says a typical construction project delivers 63% of its planned weekly output, leaving 37% undelivered. The figure comes from the company’s inaugural 2026 Global Construction Benchmarks Report, based on aggregated, anonymized data from hundreds of projects. It is a benchmark from Buildots—not a universal measure of every construction site.
What the report measures
Announced on October 8, 2026, the Buildots Intelligence Lab report covers 21 core construction activities and says its benchmarks draw on hundreds of projects across five verticals. Buildots identifies several distinct measures: planned versus actual production, schedule adherence, on-time starts, completion overrun, peak versus typical performance, and trade-level reliability. These measures describe different aspects of delivery; they should not be combined into one productivity score.
![Construction Project Management & Estimating for Beginners: [2 in 1] From Estimates to Execution - Mastering Project Bids, Estimating Techniques and Management Essentials for New Professionals](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/511FzD120CL._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The headline concerns planned weekly output: Buildots reports that a typical project delivers 63% of what it planned in a week. The other 37% is the gap between planned and reported delivered output—not a claim that 37% of all construction work is permanently lost.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How the weekly figures differ
Buildots reports that 52.8% of active construction work stays on schedule in a typical week, while 29.3% of activities start on time. These figures do not measure the same thing as weekly output: one concerns the schedule status of active work, another concerns whether activities begin by their planned start date, and the 63% figure compares delivered output with weekly plans.
#1 Best Overall
- Planned weekly output delivered: 63%, according to Buildots’ 2026 report.
- Active work staying on schedule: 52.8% in a typical week, according to the report.
- Activities starting on time: 29.3%; Buildots says the remaining 70.7% miss their planned start date.
Keeping the measures separate matters when diagnosing a project. A team could deliver a substantial share of its weekly production plan while still having schedule slippage among active work or late starts. The report provides benchmark figures, not an explanation of why any particular project misses its plan.
Activity results are not uniform
Buildots says 20 of the 21 measured activities fell short of planned weekly output. Its reported activity-level range runs from 38% for resilient or soft flooring to 122% for drywall framing, the only activity reported above plan. These are activity results in the report, not guaranteed production rates for a new project: work scope, sequencing, site conditions, staffing and measurement rules can affect comparisons, and the announcement does not provide enough detail to quantify those effects.
Completion overrun and top-quartile performance
The report says a typical activity finishes 5.3 weeks late, compared with a 2.3-week overrun for top-quartile projects. The contrast shows that the report distinguishes typical from higher-performing project outcomes. It does not, by itself, establish what practices caused the difference or predict the result for an individual project.
What a project team can take from the benchmark
Use the figures as context for asking better project-specific questions, rather than as targets that apply automatically to every trade or site. For a useful comparison, first make sure the project and benchmark are being compared on the same basis.
- Compare like with like: identify the activity, unit of work, planned time window, and schedule status being discussed.
- Keep production, schedule adherence, start reliability, and completion overrun as separate indicators.
- Review planned and actual progress frequently enough to identify missed starts or production gaps while there is still time to adjust sequencing, resources, or coordination.
- Record the assumptions behind each comparison, including scope changes and interruptions, so a benchmark does not obscure why the project’s own plan changed.
Buildots describes its platform as showing what has been built and when against a plan, highlighting deviations and activities that may put delivery dates at risk, supporting contractor and trade management, and maintaining site documentation. Those are vendor-described capabilities; the benchmark findings do not establish that any particular software will close a project’s performance gap.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How strong is the evidence?
The available announcement describes an aggregated, anonymized dataset from global construction projects, but does not state the exact project count, the names of the five verticals, the geographies, the observation period, inclusion criteria, or detailed calculation rules. Buildots says the full report contains sector breakdowns, quartile data and production-rate tables, but the announcement alone does not let readers inspect those details. The figures are therefore best treated as company-reported benchmarks, not independently audited findings or representative estimates for every region and project type.
Buildots describes its Intelligence Lab as an autonomous research unit within the company and says it typically indicates regions and locations when publishing an insight. The report’s announcement does not supply the sampling and methodology detail needed to judge how closely its benchmark matches a particular site.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
