The gap between construction productivity and the rest of the economy is not new. What the 2026 survey data makes clear is that it is structural, it is measurable, and, with global construction spending approaching $22 trillion by 2040, it carries consequences the industry can no longer defer.
Between 2000 and 2022, global construction productivity grew at 0.4% per year. The broader economy grew at approximately 2% over the same period. A decade of compounding that difference produces a sector that is, relative to its own potential, significantly less efficient than it was twenty years ago. The 2026 survey draws on responses from nearly 3,000 construction professionals across five regions and sets out where the industry currently stands and what practitioners themselves believe would drive improvement.
The first finding is a measurement problem. No single definition of productivity commands even 30% adoption in any region. The most widely used method, Earned Value over Actual Cost, reaches only 24 to 29% in most markets. In the Americas, Output per Worker Hour takes the lead. That preference was visible in the 2023 survey too, confirming a structural regional difference rather than a short-term anomaly. Between 33% and 42% of firms in each region use methods outside the top three. In the UK, 22% of firms measure productivity not at all.
For claims specialists, the practical consequence is direct. Loss of productivity claims are among the most contested matters in construction arbitration and litigation. Without contemporaneous records, an agreed baseline and a recognised method for quantifying departure from that baseline, even a well-founded claim becomes difficult to establish. The measurement gap is a claims risk before it is a management problem.
Where the data is most consistent is on the workforce question. Availability of skilled workers is the only factor rated as high impact across all five regions: 59% in the Middle East and Africa, 56% in Europe, 53% in the Americas, 46% in Asia-Pacific, and 37% in the UK. That finding runs counter to the dominant narrative in policy and conference discussions, where digital transformation and automation tend to attract the most attention and, in many jurisdictions, the most public funding. Governments fund innovation programmes more readily than sustained workforce development. The practitioners surveyed reach a different conclusion.
"The industry's own assessment, replicated across all five regions, is that productivity is first and foremost a people challenge."
Forward-looking expectations outstrip recent experience in every region, and by a wide margin in several. MEA's recent net balance of +32% is projected to rise to +54%. APAC, which recorded only +9% in the past 12 months, expects +38% in the next 12, a gap of 29 percentage points. The Office for Budget Responsibility has repeatedly revised down its own productivity growth projections for the UK economy. The pattern here is consistent with that tendency, though at an industry rather than macroeconomic level.
The interventions data confirms the same direction. Workforce upskilling averages 47% high-impact ratings and ranks as the top intervention in four of the five regions. Site management follows at 40% average. Automation receives the lowest confidence in the UK, where just 17% of respondents rate it as high impact. No single intervention is seen as transformative by more than half of respondents anywhere. Improvement will be incremental and people-centred.
Sustained investment in training, workforce planning and site-level management should sit at the centre of any credible productivity strategy. Technology adoption is a supporting measure, not the driver. The measurement challenge is equally pressing: until the industry converges on common definitions and external benchmarks, the ability to track progress and direct investment effectively will remain limited. For the claims practitioner, the position is straightforward. Record early, record consistently, and agree what is being measured before the project begins.