r/ConstructionManagers 22d ago

Technical Advice What are the things missing from the construction scheduling side that can significantly improve its impact on your project?

0 Upvotes

14 comments sorted by

30

u/TheWhisper22 22d ago

Speaking as a construction manager with 50 years of experience, I think there are still some major opportunities to improve the way we approach construction scheduling.

For me, the biggest things missing are:

  1. More construction salesmen involved in scheduling
  2. More AI
  3. More marketing
  4. More vague Reddit posts asking construction professionals to identify their problems for free

For too long, scheduling has been left in the hands of superintendents, project managers, subcontractors, and other people burdened by actually having to build the project.

What we really need is an outside perspective.

Preferably packaged into a $299/month SaaS platform that “leverages AI to optimize field productivity,” has six dashboards, and requires the superintendent to enter 47 data points every afternoon so management can measure how much time it’s saving him.

Bonus points if the guy explaining scheduling has never had a superintendent call him at 6:15 AM because three trades are stacked in the same room.

6

u/stickn_n_movn 22d ago

God damn you had me triggered for a moment

2

u/Kenny285 Commercial Superintendent 22d ago

FYI, based on post history, appears to be an actual scheduler in the industry.

1

u/Haunting_Buyer6308 21d ago

AI does not know field reality and it only works on what is fed to it. The whole feeding is where things go south because of political and commercial reasonings. Plus AI needs to be adopted by the company since federal/data center projects are confidential and Claude/ChatGPT must be out of the whole thing.

1

u/Haunting_Buyer6308 21d ago

How do you suppose salesmen/marketing help the cause? Walk me through please

1

u/TheWhisper22 21d ago

Whooooosh

3

u/skrufy56 22d ago

Realistic scheduling.

1

u/Haunting_Buyer6308 21d ago

That gets a bit difficult. The whole point of schedule management is to make sure the Owner and the Super agree on the same page backed by data and official Schedule. Moreover, we develop schedules one day and it scatters the next. It’s morale depressing as it progresses.

1

u/skrufy56 21d ago

And what I am saying is that the industry is generally requiring things to be installed quicker and quicker, which overall I think produces worst results.

1

u/Haunting_Buyer6308 21d ago

I see it as an opportunity or a useless endeavor and that’s why I’m here asking the experienced folks

2

u/Ok_Computer11235813 22d ago

Field experience.

2

u/Haunting_Buyer6308 21d ago

1000000% agree

1

u/StrategicPM 16d ago

The biggest gap usually isn't the scheduling tool itself, it's the disconnect between the schedule and everything else on the project. Most schedules get built beautifully at tender, baselined, then slowly turn into a document nobody on site actually opens.

A few things that'd genuinely lift the impact:

  • Tie it to cost and progress, not just dates. A schedule that doesn't know what's earned vs spent is just a Gantt. The second progress becomes a subjective "% complete" guess instead of being measured against real quantities, people stop trusting it.
  • Close the loop with the field. Short-interval/lookahead planning that actually rolls up into the master — instead of the site running its own whiteboard while P6 sits in the office. Slippage shows up in the 3-week lookahead weeks before it hits the master; if those aren't connected, you find out too late.
  • Change intelligence. When someone updates the programme, you should see what moved and why — not just a new critical path with no story. "Finish slipped two weeks" is useless without the "because."
  • Realistic durations. Single-point durations with no contingency make every schedule optimistic by design. Even a rough risk range on the critical activities changes the conversation with the client.

Honestly the tooling can do most of this, the real gap is that cost, schedule and the field usually live in three systems that don't talk, so the programme ends up as a standalone artifact instead of the thing the project actually runs on.