Sadeghi, S.; Niu, C.; Marjani, T. and Lotfi, R. (2026) Machine learning-enabled construction project management: Systematic review, comparative performance synthesis and implementation framework. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 16(3), pp. 461-483. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose – Machine learning (ML), a subset of artificial intelligence (AI), is increasingly transforming construction project management (CPM) processes, yet a significant gap exists between research advancements and practical implementation. This study synthesizes empirical findings and proposes a framework to bridge the research-practice divide. Design/methodology/approach – A systematic review was conducted using Scopus and Web of Science databases, following PRISMA guidelines. 64 peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2025 were selected and coded using open and axial methods. The analysis was guided by systems theory, complexity theory, and dynamic capabilities theory to develop the Machine Learning–Enabled Construction Project Management (MLCPM) framework. Findings – ML use in CPM aligns with three core areas: (1) planning tasks like cost estimation and scheduling, (2) execution tasks such as progress tracking and risk detection and (3) monitoring activities including cost control, delay prediction and performance tracking. The MLCPM framework offers a four-layer architecture consisting of data, ML processing, integration and output, with feedback and retraining loops to support scalable deployment. Furthermore, a quantitative synthesis of ten comparative studies revealed that hybrid and ensemble methods achieved superior performance in cost estimation (cost) (e.g. LightGBM and DNN-SVR), tree-based ensembles (random forest (RF) and gradient boosted trees (GBTs)) showed optimal accuracy for duration forecasting (duration) and hybrids with metaheuristic optimization outperformed single algorithms in delay prediction (delay). Originality/value – This review consolidates existing literature on ML applications in CPM and introduces a comprehensive MLCPM Framework. Additionally, a quantitative subset synthesis of comparative evaluations extracts task–method performance patterns, enhancing decision relevance. We provide practical, theory-grounded guidance for adopting ML in construction.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | artificial intelligence; construction project management; implementation; machine learning; mlcpm framework |
| Index terms: | complexity, construction project management, forecasting, forest, machine learning, cost control, monitoring, duration, systematic literature review, systems theory, comparative study, methodology, integration, progress tracking, database, accuracy, artificial intelligence, scheduling, dynamic capability, cost estimating, implementation, science |
| Subjects: | theoretical framing, project controls, artificial intelligence, management, systems engineering, data management, organizational analysis, project management theory and practice, prediction and forecasting, research evaluation and metrics, specialized education, research methods, research design and methodology, control systems, professional development, financial and cost management, operations research, contractual arrangements, environmental science |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Digital Applications, Site Management, Information Management, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Education, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here