Planning and Progress: Estimation Challenges Facing U.S. Teams

Automation is a clear priority, but few teams in the U.S. have moved beyond the early stages. Fewer than 5% have automated more than three-quarters of their estimates, and nearly 70% want automation to handle repetitive tasks and integrate real-time data.

This gap between intent and execution is not unique. Other regions show similarly low maturity, with Europe and the UK ahead, and Japan and APAC still largely reliant on manual methods.

To move forward, organizations should begin with low-risk automation pilots. Targeting repetitive tasks or early-stage estimates can reduce manual effort, improve consistency, and build confidence across teams.

Estimation processes are still fragmented across departments. In the United States, 52% of teams say their workflows are only partially integrated. Globally, the picture is similar. Most respondents report incomplete integration between functions such as engineering, finance, and procurement. The result is limited visibility, inconsistent assumptions, and slow response to change.

Even when estimates are technically sound, they often fail to reflect real-time shifts in project scope or delivery constraints. Disconnected systems prevent organizations from sharing data efficiently or aligning across teams, which increases risk and weakens planning confidence.

While some regions, such as Canada and parts of Europe, report more progress, most organizations still struggle to connect estimation with broader delivery systems. To improve project outcomes, U.S. teams must prioritize cross-functional alignment. Integrated systems reduce delays, surface hidden risks, and improve forecast quality across the project lifecycle.

Most U.S. organizations measure budget and schedule performance, but far fewer track how well teams align across functions. Data from the 2025 industry study shows that 73% of U.S. respondents monitor cost adherence and 71% track timelines. Only 43 percent include cross-functional or organizational alignment in their success metrics.

This gap limits visibility into disconnects between planning and execution. Alignment is especially important in projects that require coordination across engineering, finance, procurement, and leadership teams.

Globally, alignment tracking is even less common. In Canada, just 33% of organizations measure it. Most other regions fall below 20%. Europe and the United Kingdom report the lowest usage, with fewer than 5% of teams including alignment in their project evaluations.

By prioritizing alignment, organizations can move from reactive tracking to more proactive management. Shared dashboards that connect business goals to project delivery can improve coordination, reduce rework, and support more strategic execution.

U.S. teams have access to a wide range of estimation tools, but few use them in consistent or coordinated ways. Eight seven percent of U.S. respondents rely on Excel, and most teams juggle four to six different tools. However, these tools are often used without shared standards or cross-team workflows.

The bigger issue is training. Nearly one-third of U.S. professionals say the lack of formal training limits their ability to improve outcomes. Many learn estimation practices informally, which leads to inconsistent execution, uneven accuracy, and limited scalability.

This challenge is not unique to the U.S. Excel dominates globally, but countries like Japan and the United Kingdom show broader tool adoption. Even so, most regions report similar training gaps and process fragmentation.

To close these gaps, organizations should invest in internal training frameworks, including estimation playbooks, peer-reviewed templates, and role-based certification programs. These steps can improve consistency and build lasting capability across teams.

Despite growing pressure from investors and regulators, most U.S. organizations have not integrated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their estimation frameworks. Only 19% of U.S. respondents consider ESG to be “extremely important,” and just 33% say regulations meaningfully shape their cost models.

This disconnect between boardroom priorities and frontline execution creates risk, especially for companies operating internationally or under emerging compliance mandates. As expectations around disclosure and accountability increase, so does the need for estimation practices that account for ESG inputs and regulatory impacts.

While some global peers are moving faster, the takeaway for U.S. teams is clear. Building ESG into cost estimation early can help organizations anticipate costs, meet compliance requirements, and support long-term planning.

Survey data highlights how estimation maturity is being shaped by role-specific focus areas. While gaps remain, several trends suggest where U.S. organizations are concentrating their efforts.