Construction Firms Pour Millions Into AI, but Headcount Holds Steady, BRG Finds

Spending is broad, integration is not

BRG's report, titled AI in Construction: Measurable Results, Unclear Benchmarks, says AI now touches the whole project lifecycle. Adoption stands at 46% in pre-construction, 49% in construction, 40% in post-construction and 43% in business operations.

Planning and feasibility is the most widely adopted individual function at 58%, rising to 80% among builders. Dara Hendrix, a managing director at BRG, said this is a natural starting point for builders "because that is where much of the project risk sits." She added that the work is time-consuming, such as developing conceptual estimates and early analysis, and often generates little or no direct revenue.

On investment, 37% of respondents have put in $1 million or more over the past 24 months. Yet just 15% say AI is fully integrated across projects and operations.

Effectiveness gains outpace efficiency, and jobs are mostly intact

Across most functions, respondents were more likely to cite gains in effectiveness, meaning better quality, performance and outcomes, than gains in efficiency. Double-digit cost savings were still widely reported: 67% during construction, 62% in business operations and 58% each in pre- and post-construction. Nearly 20% of respondents cited post-construction savings greater than 30%.

The workforce effect shows up in how teams are organized rather than in how many people they employ:

• Only 11% report reducing staff because of AI.
• 18% say AI has led them to add staff in certain areas.
• More than half have changed their reliance on outside vendors, consultants or contractors.
• 46% have changed team structure and collaboration.
• 38% have reskilled or retrained existing employees.

Barriers, risk and the ROI problem

Respondents most often named a lack of skilled talent or expertise (40%), limited relevance to their work (38%), and data and integration challenges (37% each) as factors likely to limit AI's benefits.

Risk concerns begin with liability for errors in AI-generated work (43%) and unclear treatment of AI in contracts (40%). Policies appear to lag behind: only 42% of executives say their policies address human oversight and accountability, and just 34% say they address accuracy and reliability.

Measuring returns is also uneven. Some 37% of respondents primarily rely on financial metrics, 29% on operational measures and about one-quarter on usage or adoption. Another 6% do not evaluate ROI at all.

Travis Olson, a director at BRG, said the hardest ROI questions arise when AI makes something possible that was not realistically on the table before. "If the technology can review two million emails, the alternative may not be a slower review; it may be no review at all," he said, warning that focusing too narrowly on ROI risks missing broader changes.

What it means for the industry

The findings suggest that construction firms are committing real money to AI while still working out where it pays off most. For now, the benefits BRG reports lean toward better outcomes and cost savings rather than workforce reductions, and the main hurdles are skills, data, contractual clarity and internal policy.

The report is the fourth installment in BRG's AI Industry Spotlight series, which has also examined retail, energy and financial institutions. BRG surveyed leaders and executives in the construction and development sectors in July 2026, most of them based in North America, and the data reflects North American results unless otherwise specified.