What this is worth
We would rather be believed than impressive.
A great deal of construction-technology marketing rests on a small number of benefit percentages that have been passed hand to hand for two decades. We do not use them. A sophisticated buyer who recognises one stale figure discounts everything around it — and this market has enough of them in circulation that recognition is likely.
Here is what we will claim, and what we will not.
Stated first
What we will not claim
We will not tell you that a maturity score causes a cost saving. A measurement service cannot honestly claim that.
We do not use a single headline figure for rework as a percentage of project cost. The published range is too wide to support one.
And we do not publish benefit percentages we cannot trace to a named, dated, independent source. Where we quote a study, we tell you its date, its sample and whether it is a correlation or a controlled result.
Four arguments
What the evidence does support
Organizations do not fail to start. They fail to hold.
McKinsey's 2018 transformation survey of 1,793 organizations found 16% both improved performance and sustained the improvement; a further 7% improved and then reverted. In traditional industries the sustained figure fell to between 4% and 11%. Prosci's 2023 study of 2,668 change practitioners found that only 61% planned for sustainment at all — and that those who did met or exceeded objectives 81% of the time, against 15% for those who did not. These are self-reported correlations rather than controlled results, and we present them that way.
McKinsey transformation survey, January 2018; Prosci, 2023.
The practices we measure track measured cost and schedule performance.
The Construction Industry Institute found high implementers of its practices averaged −2.3% cost growth against +8.6%, and 1.8% schedule growth against 11.5%. The Institute states plainly that the relationship is correlational. So do we.
Construction Industry Institute.
Procurement is the lever, and it has been measured in Canada.
Quebec public-owner BIM projects grew from 77 to 265 between 2021 and 2025 as the mandate threshold fell from $50 million to $5 million. Nothing in that sequence required the market to become more enthusiastic. It required the buyer to ask.
Quebec public procurement data.
The obligation already exists, and it renews on someone else's schedule.
Ontario Regulation 588/17 requires asset management plans on fixed dates, with council review each July and five-year renewal. This is the most concrete argument on the page, because it does not depend on a correlation at all. The citations behind your score are close to the evidence that questionnaire already requires. The work is done once.
Ontario Regulation 588/17.
Directly attributable
The one cost we can attribute directly
Standards drift is a recurring, dated, external cost. ISO 7817-1:2024 superseded the earlier level-of-information-need standard, so every organization that had specified against it has to re-baseline. The ISO 19650 revision reached Draft International Standard in March 2026, with publication expected in 2027.
Every Compass tier includes standards watch: your templates and requirement sets maintained against the standard as published. Not as predicted — as published.
Relative cost
The comparison that works in a council chamber
The honest way to present return on a measurement service is to show what it costs relative to the things it is meant to protect, and let you decide.
There are three comparisons worth making, and we will make all three with your own numbers in a scoping conversation: the subscription against your annual capital program; the subscription against the day rate for the same expertise bought in a block; and the subscription against the measured spread in cost growth between organizations that run these practices well and organizations that do not.
We do not claim to close that spread. We claim to make the practices behind it measurable, which is the precondition for closing it.
Your own arithmetic
The number that actually matters is yours
Sector averages are a poor substitute for your own arithmetic. The Grounded Diagnostic prices your current state under four headings, anchored to specific recent events at your organization and using your own rates.
Capital efficiency
Rework, redesign, and information rebuilt from scratch.
Operating performance
Time lost searching, and reactive rather than planned maintenance.
Risk exposure
Compliance, warranty and decision risk carried because information is missing.
Schedule certainty
Delay and re-sequencing attributable to information failures.
A figure without a record behind it does not go in. And the figures are expressed conservatively — the evidence base supports higher numbers, but conservative framing is what makes them survive scrutiny.