Why the biggest innovation in construction might be learning to say no

Should contractors challenge unrealistic programmes, incomplete designs and poor decisions more often? The construction industry is keen to embrace innovation, but one of its most valuable improvements could be a willingness to stop accepting the unacceptable, writes John Ridgeway.

Construction has become very good at finding ways to do more with less. Tighter programmes, leaner teams, more demanding specifications and increasingly complex projects have become familiar features of the industry. Technology promises to make everything faster, procurement is expected to deliver greater value and contractors are under constant pressure to meet deadlines and protect margins.

However, there is a question the industry does not ask often enough - what if the biggest improvement in construction productivity is not finding another way to work faster, but learning when not to proceed?

Contractors are frequently expected to deliver projects against programmes that leave little room for uncertainty, designs that are not fully resolved and budgets that fail to reflect the realities of construction. When problems emerge, the instinct is often to find a workaround, absorb the additional pressure and keep the project moving.

There is an understandable commercial reason for this. Nobody wants to be labelled difficult, obstructive or responsible for holding up a project, but there is a difference between being collaborative and accepting decisions that are likely to damage the outcome. Sometimes the most professional response a contractor can give is no.

The financial consequences of poor decisions are considerable. Research by the Get It Right Initiative (GIRI) estimates that errors in design and construction account for between 10% and 25% of project costs, depending on the size and complexity of the project. Its 2025 research puts the potential annual cost to the UK construction industry at between £10bn and £25bn.

These are estimates rather than a definitive measure of every project's performance, but they underline the scale of the opportunity to improve. Errors do not appear from nowhere. They can originate in incomplete information, inadequate planning, poor coordination, rushed decisions and a failure to challenge assumptions before they become expensive problems.

GIRI's earlier research into the causes of construction error identified poor planning, poor design and a desire to “do something” among the principal contributors. It also highlighted failures in communication and the late appointment of trade contractors as barriers to getting things right.

That last point matters, because contractors and specialist subcontractors often possess practical knowledge that could identify problems before work begins. Yet they may not be involved early enough to influence design, sequencing or procurement decisions. By the time their expertise is sought, important decisions may already have been made and the programme may leave little room to reconsider them. The result is a familiar cycle, where a problem is identified, a solution is improvised, time is lost, costs increase and responsibility becomes contested.

When the programme becomes the problem

Few things create more pressure on a construction project than an unrealistic programme. Deadlines are established, milestones agreed and contractual commitments made, often before the full implications of the design, procurement strategy, site conditions and available resources are understood. Once the programme has been approved, it can become an immovable reference point, even when the assumptions on which it was based have changed.

Contractors are then expected to recover time through longer working hours, additional labour, overlapping activities or changes to the sequence of work. These measures can be effective when properly planned, but they cannot compensate indefinitely for a programme that was unrealistic from the outset.

The latest Industry Confidence Report from the Centre for Construction Best Practice (CCBP), covering the third and fourth quarters of 2025, illustrates the pressures facing the sector. It found that 72% of respondents said rising costs were significantly affecting project delivery, while 56% said inflationary pressures were disrupting project planning and execution. Sixty per cent also believed that cost increases were not adequately recognised in client budgets.

These figures point to a fundamental tension. Contractors are being asked to deliver against commercial and programme commitments while the financial and operational conditions around them continue to change. At what point does agreeing to an unrealistic deadline cease to be collaboration and become an acceptance of avoidable risk?

A contractor who challenges a programme at the outset may be accused of being negative. A contractor who agrees to it and misses the deadline may face financial penalties, damaged relationships and disputes. The industry needs to become more comfortable with the first conversation if it wants to avoid the second.

The same principle applies to design. Construction projects are complex, and design development does not always follow a perfectly linear process. Some decisions will inevitably evolve as a project progresses. But there is a significant difference between managing legitimate design development and starting work with information that is incomplete, uncoordinated or not sufficiently developed.

A drawing may look complete while important interfaces remain unresolved. A specification may identify a product without considering how it connects with adjacent systems. A design may satisfy an individual discipline while creating problems for another.

If contractors are expected to resolve these issues on site, the project is transferring design risk into the construction phase, where changes are generally more disruptive and expensive.

The consequences can include abortive work, material waste, rework, delays and disputes over responsibility. More importantly, pressure to maintain progress can encourage decisions that compromise quality or leave insufficient time for proper checking.

The PlanRadar report Managing Project Changes in the Age of AI, based on responses from 1,728 construction professionals across Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, found that two-thirds of respondents said mid-project changes led to budget overruns in many or most of their projects. One in four estimated that delayed approvals typically added more than a month to project timelines.

Although these findings are not UK-specific, they illustrate how changes and delayed decisions can undermine delivery. They also reinforce the importance of resolving questions before they become site problems.

Contractors should be able to say that a design is not ready for construction, that a detail requires clarification or that a proposed solution needs further consideration. This is not an attempt to avoid responsibility. It is an attempt to ensure that responsibility is exercised at the right time.

Why saying no is so difficult

If challenging poor decisions makes commercial and practical sense, why does it happen so rarely? Part of the answer lies in the industry's relationships and contractual structures. Contractors depend on repeat business, recommendations and long-term relationships with clients, consultants and other members of the supply chain. Challenging a decision can feel like putting those relationships at risk.

There is also a culture in which the ability to overcome problems is often celebrated more than the ability to prevent them. The contractor who finds a way to recover a programme receives recognition. The contractor who points out that the programme was never achievable may be viewed as lacking ambition or commitment. This creates the wrong incentives.

It rewards the appearance of progress rather than the quality of the decisions that produce it. It can also encourage people to keep quiet about concerns until the consequences are too significant to ignore.

The skills shortage makes this even more important. The Construction Industry Training Board's Industry Picture 2026 identifies a widening gap between the demand for construction skills and the industry's capacity to deliver. It warns that current productivity levels are insufficient to offset worker shortages.

When skilled labour is in short supply, using people to correct avoidable mistakes or work around poor planning is an expensive waste of capacity. The industry cannot afford to treat skilled workers as an unlimited resource that can be deployed to rescue every unrealistic commitment.

We must recognise that saying no does not mean refusing to collaborate. There is a danger that this argument could be interpreted as an invitation for contractors to become less flexible. That is not the intention.

Construction requires collaboration, compromise and the ability to respond to changing circumstances. Problems will arise, unforeseen conditions will emerge and clients will sometimes need to change their requirements. A contractor who refuses to adapt is unlikely to be a valuable project partner. But effective collaboration depends on honesty. It means being prepared to explain why a decision will not work, what risks it creates and what alternatives are available.

A constructive challenge should be supported by evidence. If a programme is unrealistic, the contractor should be able to identify the activities, dependencies, resources or approvals that make it so. If a design is incomplete, the outstanding information and its implications should be documented. If a specification creates a technical or buildability problem, the contractor should explain the issue and propose a workable alternative.

The objective is not to stop a project. It is to prevent the project from moving forward on assumptions that cannot be sustained. This requires clients, consultants and contractors to create an environment in which concerns can be raised without being treated as an act of confrontation. It also requires earlier engagement with the people who will actually build, install and maintain what has been designed.

A different definition of progress

Perhaps the industry needs to rethink what it means to keep a project moving. Progress is not measured by how many activities have started, how quickly materials have been installed or how closely a site appears to be following its original programme. Real progress is measured by the delivery of a building or infrastructure asset that meets its requirements, performs as intended and can be handed over without a trail of unresolved defects and disputes.

Sometimes that means accelerating. Sometimes it means changing the sequence and sometimes it means stopping until a problem has been properly understood.

Technology has an important role to play in making these decisions. Better information management, digital coordination, BIM, AI-assisted checking and more effective project reporting can help teams identify clashes, monitor progress and understand the consequences of change, but technology cannot compensate for a culture in which people are reluctant to challenge a decision they know is wrong.

The most sophisticated project management system in the world will not make an impossible programme achievable. Nor will another digital tool resolve a design issue if nobody is prepared to raise it.

The construction industry has spent years talking about innovation, productivity and collaboration. It has invested in new materials, modern methods of construction, automation and digital technology. All of these have a role to play, but perhaps one of the most valuable changes would be cultural rather than technological: giving contractors the confidence, authority and commercial protection to challenge decisions that threaten the success of a project.

Saying no to an unrealistic programme is not a refusal to deliver. Saying no to incomplete information is not a lack of cooperation and saying no to a poor design decision is not an obstacle to progress.

It may be the most important contribution a contractor can make to ensuring that the project succeeds, because the industry does not need more people who can find ways to work around bad decisions. It needs more people who are prepared to challenge them before they become expensive mistakes.

Here are 10 SEO-focused FAQs to support the article, targeting searches around construction project delays, contractor responsibilities, design errors and project delivery.

Frequently Asked Questions about this article

1. Why should construction contractors challenge unrealistic project programmes?

Unrealistic construction programmes can create pressure on labour, resources and quality, increasing the risk of delays, mistakes and additional costs. Contractors should challenge deadlines that do not reflect the complexity of the work, availability of materials, design readiness or site conditions. Raising concerns early allows the project team to review the programme and agree a more achievable approach.

2. What happens when a construction project starts before the design is complete?

Starting construction with incomplete or uncoordinated design information can lead to errors, clashes, rework, material waste and delays. Contractors may be forced to make decisions on site without having all the information needed to do so confidently. Resolving design issues before work begins can reduce disruption and improve project outcomes.

3. How do design errors affect construction costs?

Design errors can result in additional labour, replacement materials, abortive work, programme delays and disputes over responsibility. The Get It Right Initiative estimates that errors in design and construction account for between 10% and 25% of project costs, demonstrating the financial importance of getting decisions right early.

4. Should contractors be responsible for identifying design problems?

Contractors have an important role in identifying practical, technical and buildability issues. Their experience of construction methods, sequencing and site conditions can highlight problems that may not be apparent during the design process. However, this does not remove the designer's responsibilities. Concerns should be raised, documented and resolved by the appropriate project team members.

5. How can poor planning affect construction productivity?

Poor planning can result in workers waiting for information, materials or access, trades working out of sequence and completed work having to be repeated. These problems reduce productive working time and place additional pressure on already stretched resources. Better coordination, realistic programmes and early decision-making can help prevent avoidable disruption.

6. Why is early contractor involvement important in construction projects?

Early contractor involvement brings practical construction knowledge into the design and planning stages. Contractors can advise on buildability, sequencing, procurement, materials, resources and potential risks before decisions become difficult or expensive to change. This can help improve coordination, reduce errors and create more realistic programmes.

7. What should a contractor do if a construction deadline is unrealistic?

A contractor should identify the reasons the deadline cannot reasonably be achieved and explain the implications for cost, resources, quality and project delivery. This should be supported by programme evidence, clear communication and, where possible, alternative proposals. Raising concerns early is preferable to accepting an unrealistic commitment and dealing with the consequences later.

8. Can technology prevent construction design errors and project delays?

Technology such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), digital project management platforms and AI-assisted design checking can help identify clashes, improve information sharing and highlight potential problems earlier. However, technology is only effective when project teams use the information available and are prepared to act on it. It cannot replace professional judgement or effective communication.

9. How can construction companies reduce rework and avoidable mistakes?

Construction companies can reduce rework by improving design coordination, involving contractors and specialist trades earlier, checking information before work starts and establishing clear processes for managing changes. Realistic programmes and open communication also help ensure that problems are identified before they affect construction activities.

10. Does saying no to a construction project decision mean a contractor is being uncooperative?

No. Challenging a decision that creates unnecessary risk is part of responsible project delivery. Contractors should be willing to explain why a programme, design or specification may not work and provide evidence to support their concerns. Constructive challenge is not about obstructing progress; it is about finding a better way to achieve the project's objectives.