A critical appraisal of traditional methods of construction progress monitoring

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the current construction progress monitoring (CPM) process in relation to the contractual obligations, how project management teams carry out this activity in the field and why teams continue to adopt the current method. The study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current monitoring process and its effectiveness, identify any shortcomings and propose recommendations for improvements that can lead to better project outcomes.Design/methodology/approachThe study conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 construction management practitioners to explore their views on contractual requirements, traditional progress monitoring practices and advanced monitoring methods. Thematic analysis was used to identify existing processes, practices and incentives for advanced monitoring.FindingsStandard construction contracts mandate current progress monitoring practices, which often rely on manual, document-centric and labor-intensive methods, leading to slow and erroneous progress reporting and project delays. Key barriers to adopting advanced tools include rigid contractual clauses, lack of incentives and the absence of reliable automated tools. A holistic automated approach that covers the entire CPM process, from planning to claim management, is needed as a viable alternative to traditional practices.Research limitations/implicationsThe study's findings can inform researchers, stakeholders and decision-makers about the existing monitoring practices and contribute to enhancing project management practices.Originality/valueThe study identified contractually mandated progress monitoring processes, traditional methods of collecting, transferring, analyzing and dispensing progress-related information and potential incentives and points of departure towards technologically advanced methods.