Why The Wrong Question Matters

For sixty years, construction has asked the same question: which single tool will own scheduling?

That's the wrong question. And the market finally knows it.

Construction is a paradox. It's one of the most collaborative industries on earth. Hundreds of trades, thousands of workers, dozens of stakeholders on a single project, all coordinating in real time. Yet when it comes to scheduling, the industry might as well be working in silos.

That disconnect has been the defining feature of construction scheduling for sixty years. But something is shifting. For the first time in decades, the market isn't asking which single tool will replace Primavera. Instead, it's asking, "Which tools work together?"

This shift matters, not because of the technology, but because of what it reveals about how construction actually gets built.

The old “one tool to rule them all” dream is dead. Here’s the 10-second version of what’s actually happening and why it matters.

The problem with construction scheduling isn't broken tools. It's a broken structure.

Most projects run three planning cycles simultaneously, and they barely speak to each other. The master schedule sits in the office, updated monthly or quarterly, designed primarily for contract compliance. The four-to-six-week look-ahead plan sits with project engineers, updated weekly to coordinate detailed work. And then there are the daily huddles on-site, where superintendents talk through what happened today and what's coming tomorrow.

Information flows downward. Rarely back up. When something changes on the job, the master schedule doesn't know about it. When the master schedule slips, the daily teams can't see why.

This inefficiency would be frustrating in any industry. In construction, where margins hover between 3 and 5 percent, it compounds into significant losses.

The deeper issue is accessibility. Legacy scheduling software, particularly Primavera P6, which dominated for twenty-five years, is powerful but complex. It requires training, experience, and domain knowledge. When tools demand this much expertise, companies need dedicated schedulers. When you need dedicated schedulers, you create a bottleneck. And when you create a bottleneck, you create a silo. The knowledge of how to actually execute the work, held by hundreds of people on the job, never makes it into the schedule.

Garrett Harley from Oracle, who has spent twenty years in this space, acknowledges this head-on:

But here's the thing: this isn't a fundamental limitation of scheduling methodology. It's a software design problem.

For sixty years, the question was singular. Which tool will own scheduling?

Today, the question is plural. And that changes everything.

The market is fragmenting, not consolidating. Different scheduling problems require fundamentally different solutions. CPM compliance scheduling is different from weekly production planning. Weekly planning is different from real-time field coordination. Enterprise orchestration is different from single-project execution.

Rather than trying to own all of these with a single platform, the strongest companies are picking their niche and dominating it completely.

Planera is winning the collaboration game. Their core insight: people engage with whiteboards, not Gantt charts. They combine the collaborative feel of digital whiteboards with full CPM analytical power underneath. Nitin describes the problem they're solving plainly:

By democratizing access without sacrificing rigor, they're expanding from five schedulers on a project to a hundred team members contributing to planning.

Aphex owns something different: the plan-communicate-track loop. Jason and Carlos identified a specific failure in construction planning. The weekly plan is created Friday, but by Monday it's outdated because the field changes constantly.

Their insight: the value of planning isn't the plan itself. It's the conversation. By integrating detailed planning, visual communication, and real-time tracking in one workflow, they're solving what Patrick describes as the real-time execution problem.

nPlan approaches it through intelligent automation. Alan Mosca founded the company on a straightforward observation: teams drown in manual reporting and data entry. Why should planners spend hours generating progress reports and scenario analyses when AI can do it?

Their Schedule Studio generates planning recommendations from historical data. Barry, their AI agent, automates reporting and forecasting. "You're not going to have to do the granular motions anymore," Alan explains. "Your job becomes to have ideas of what to look at, not crank the handle on some process that hasn’t changed in decades."

For mega-projects, Nodes & Links addresses a different constraint entirely. On a five-hundred-million-dollar infrastructure project, there are simply not enough skilled people to manage the complexity. Thousands of tasks, hundreds of stakeholders, and dozens of work streams running in parallel.

Greg and Christos are deploying agentic AI to handle desk work: schedule analysis, progress reporting, risk identification, and decision support. "There are not enough qualified people in construction," Greg explains. "Nodes & Links is trying to massively increase the productivity of projects by deploying agentic workforces."

And Oracle? They're evolving rather than disrupting. Garrett's framing is important:

Primavera Cloud blends both methodologies. It handles beginners through experts in a single system. It integrates portfolio management, risk analysis, and resource management in a unified ecosystem.

What's striking is that none of these companies believe one platform will own scheduling. They're picking niches. Democratizing access. Integrating planning with execution. Reducing manual labor. That's the realistic market outcome.

But here's what matters most for founders right now: the largest opportunity is being overlooked.

Patrick offers a crucial insight: "We're building products for the high end right now. There's a whole addressable market in this middle market area." The gap he's describing is substantial. Oracle dominates projects above one hundred million dollars. Sophisticated teams. Enterprise budgets. Contractual requirements for formal CPM.

The startups are winning in high-end production planning and mega-project orchestration. Also competitive, also specialized.

But projects between twenty and one hundred million dollars? That's where most construction dollars are actually spent. That's where most contractors operate primarily. Yet no vendor has adequately solved the problem. Current solutions are either too complex (designed for mega-projects, overkill for mid-market needs), too expensive (pricing built for five-hundred-person teams, not fifty-person teams), or too slow to implement.

Why does this matter? The reason is that the mid-market exhibits a level of complexity that justifies investment without necessitating the use of enterprise software. The right solution could own a multi-billion-dollar market segment.

Patrick's candid assessment:

For founders, this is significant. The mid-market is wide open. The window to win it is now, before solutions mature and consolidation happens.

But before founders get excited about the opportunity, there's something they need to understand about construction tech that contradicts everything they learned building SaaS companies.

Construction adoption is fundamentally different.

It's slow. And that's actually the point.

Patrick describes how it actually works:

This sounds glacial compared to SaaS timelines. It is. But here's what happens as a result: retention is incredible. Switching costs become real. A customer acquired through project-by-project validation stays. They've trained their teams. They've integrated the tool into workflows. They've built institutional knowledge. The cost and friction of switching to a competitor are enormous.

This is the hidden advantage of construction tech that most founders miss. They arrive expecting viral growth and self-serve expansion. They leave frustrated. The companies that embrace high-touch, relationship-driven sales and patient adoption? They build defensible, durable businesses.

Garrett frames it this way:

In other words, build for beginners, but don't abandon experts.

So what does this mean for founders building in this space?

Planera owns collaborative scheduling. Aphex owns weekly planning and real-time coordination. nPlan owns intelligent automation. Nodes & Links owns enterprise orchestration. Each won by picking one problem and solving it completely. Stop trying to own all of scheduling. You'll lose to Oracle. Own a segment, and you'll win.

Are you serving the mid-market, where adoption patterns are different but opportunity is largest? Or the mega-project segment, where competition is intense but budgets are substantial? Or the high-end of the software stack, where integration matters more than individual features? Your GTM strategy depends entirely on this choice.

Budget for customer success. Build implementation teams, not consultants. Invest in deep customer relationships. Plan for eighteen-month sales cycles and project-by-project adoption. This isn't weakness. In construction, the long game is the only game.

Customers are frustrated with existing options. They're open to new approaches. This window won't stay open forever. Capture market share in your niche now, before consolidation happens. Industry observers predict acquisition and integration over the next five to ten years. Move while the window exists.

Technology is no longer the constraint. Access to scheduling tools is solved. What's actually constrained is cultural change. The shift from schedules as legal defense mechanisms to schedules as collaborative alignment tools. The shift from gatekeeping scheduling knowledge to democratizing it. Build for that cultural transformation, and you're building for the future of construction.

This newsletter touches on some key themes from a deeper analysis of the scheduling market. The report examines segment-by-segment GTM strategies, competitive positioning across different project sizes, what's actually working versus what's hype, and detailed forecasts for 2026 and beyond.

But more importantly, we want to hear from you. Because the most interesting insights come from people building and operating in this space, not from observers.

What's your biggest scheduling challenge right now? Is it access? Can't find skilled schedulers? Is it collaboration? Teams don't trust shared digital plans? Is it integration? Too many systems, too much manual data entry? Is it something else entirely?

Reply to this email. We'll respond personally. And depending on what we hear, your insight might shape future analysis.

That's how we build a better understanding of what's actually happening in the field.

👇👇👇 LIMITED TIME OFFER 👇👇👇
Refer now to get a copy of the Scheduling in the Modern Tech-Driven AEC Industry report

Recognition well deserved!

What matters most for autonomy adoption?

Autodesk is tackling the NFL