Getting a project off the ground is never a matter of chance.

Spending hundreds of days a year on the go, burning the midnight oil to write proposals, track progress, and run between departments...

Perhaps, out of the dozens of projects we engage with each year, only a handful remain in the pipeline by the end.

Even when both the government and the company are fully committed, we’ve had to watch helplessly as companies turn around and head to a neighboring province because the approval process lagged or service details fell short.

Other times, a company expresses interest in the local area, but due to unreasonable park planning, we can only watch as the opportunity slips away.

We give it our all, so why do we keep missing out on projects and struggle to bring them to fruition?

Beyond external factors, we must also look inward for answers.

01 Mismatched Planning: Inability to Attract Projects

To get to the root of the problem, let’s start with planning issues.

Many industrial parks have vague industry positioning and blindly follow trends.

When renewable energy becomes a hot topic, they rush to build renewable energy parks; when biopharmaceuticals take off, they scramble to attract biopharmaceutical projects.

Yet they overlook the fundamentals: Does the local area have an industrial chain foundation? Can upstream raw materials be supplied? Can the downstream market absorb the output?

Previously, a company was drawn to a certain location specifically because of its “new energy industrial park,” only to discover that the local supporting infrastructure was completely lacking. Ultimately, the company relocated to the Yangtze River Delta.

Park development often falls into the same trap: building facilities first and attracting tenants later.

The blueprints look impressive, and the roads are wide enough, but when companies actually move in, they discover: the ceiling height is insufficient, the load-bearing capacity is inadequate, and production lines simply cannot be accommodated.

When industrial planning and infrastructure planning are not properly executed, the park lacks core competitiveness, and projects naturally struggle to materialize.

At a deeper level, the industrial support offered by many localities is almost uniformly generic, lacking targeted solutions.

They neither differentiate based on local industrial characteristics nor provide support tailored to address enterprises’ pain points.

For example, when attracting biopharmaceutical companies, project developers place greater emphasis on “clinical trial facilities” and “fast-track drug approval processes,” yet some localities still rely on outdated approaches.

Today, high-tech enterprises in fields such as artificial intelligence and the low-altitude economy place greater emphasis on comprehensive supporting capabilities, often presenting composite demands such as “testing platforms + talent apartments + R&D subsidies.”

If local governments continue to rely on the same old support methods, how can these enterprises settle here when their needs remain unmet?

02 Professional Shortcomings and Lack of Resilience

Today, trillion-dollar new sectors such as artificial intelligence and the low-altitude economy are constantly emerging, placing higher demands on the professional capabilities of investment promotion professionals.

They must not only understand policies and be familiar with industries, but also be skilled in communication and negotiation, while constantly maintaining a spirit of inquiry and learning.

Even experienced investment promotion professionals often feel overwhelmed, as the pace of updating their knowledge reserves simply cannot keep up with the rapid evolution of industries.

When dealing with cutting-edge projects, engaging in professional dialogue is inevitably challenging, and they often lack confidence in assessing true value and implementation feasibility.

Some investment promotion professionals are unclear about what a company has, what it needs, and what it can contribute; they also lack a clear understanding of what the local area has, what it needs, and what it can offer.

Unable to articulate specific needs and lacking a systematic understanding of local advantages, they often remain stuck at the macro level—focusing solely on location and industrial chains.

Once a company probes deeper into specific sectors and supporting infrastructure, they are often unable to provide immediate answers, let alone identify potential bottlenecks in implementation.

Take this example: it may sound surprising, but it’s true—a foreign-invested enterprise listed over 1,000 specific requirements.

But the investment promotion team didn’t give up; they broke down each issue one by one and pushed forward step by step. The company recognized the investment advantages and development prospects, and ultimately, the project was established locally.

In fact, the likelihood of a project being successfully implemented is only greater when both parties have a mutual understanding of each other.

The project follow-up phase often puts the investment promotion team’s tenacity and patience to the test.

Sometimes, when difficulties arise during the process, or if negotiations break down after one or two rounds, the project gets shelved and attention shifts to other opportunities, wasting all the groundwork done earlier.

Lack of close follow-up and inadequate service can make the enterprise feel that there is a lack of sincerity, leading to missed opportunities for cooperation.

03 Interdepartmental Coordination and Inadequate Service

From initial contact to project implementation, the process is like a “relay race” spanning multiple departments and levels.

It often requires approvals from over a dozen departments—including planning, environmental protection, land resources, and fire safety—with each step of the process interlinked.

However, there is often a lack of efficient coordination between departments, and the “passing the buck” mentality has become the norm.

The land administration department says, “Land quotas haven’t been allocated, so we can’t provide the land”; the planning department says, “The design proposal doesn’t comply with urban planning, so we can’t approve it”; and the environmental protection department says, “The environmental impact assessment report doesn’t meet standards, so we can’t approve it.”

Meanwhile, some companies are often in a rush to invest.

For example, food companies need to start production before the “Spring Festival peak season,” and equipment manufacturers must meet order delivery deadlines. If approvals take too long, companies cannot afford to wait and naturally choose to withdraw their investments.

Previously, there was a new energy project where the company was highly satisfied with all the conditions of a certain industrial park and intended to set up operations there.

However, because certain approvals were delayed by three months, a park in a neighboring province seized the opportunity during that time. With a faster response, it cleared the project’s bottlenecks and “scooped up” the deal.

Beyond approval efficiency, the quality of park services also directly impacts a company’s willingness to establish operations.

Many industrial parks promise “one-stop service,” but in practice, companies often receive only “half-service.”

Companies must handle registration procedures on their own, and when it comes to the promised “dedicated liaison”—especially for specialized issues like environmental inspections—investment promotion staff either lack understanding of the processes or are unable to coordinate with relevant departments.

Various issues remain stuck in the pipeline before the project can be finalized.

I once heard of an investment promotion officer who, to ensure a project’s successful implementation, conducted detailed research and verification with various departments in advance regarding environmental impact approvals and industry certifications. They even collaborated with the China Electronics Association and the Semiconductor Association to produce environmental and safety analysis reports.

In another instance, after an investment promotion officer recognized that the business owner’s children needed schooling, they meticulously organized and implemented every detail—from the project implementation plan to arrangements for kindergartens and primary/secondary schools, all the way to nearby housing prices—and the project was successfully established.

The difficulty in attracting businesses lies in poor “inter-departmental coordination” and a lack of “precision in service” during the early stages.

Only by streamlining internal processes, strengthening cross-departmental coordination, and enhancing the professionalism and responsiveness of services can we truly attract and retain high-quality projects.

In conclusion

The difficulty in attracting projects has never stemmed from a bottleneck in a single stage.

At the strategic planning level, there is a tendency to chase trends—building industrial parks and constructing buildings before considering tenant recruitment, only to find that companies cannot eventually accommodate their production lines.

New industries emerge rapidly, yet professional capabilities often struggle to keep pace; with insufficient persistence in following up on projects, leads are left to stall right before our eyes.

Even more challenging is the cumbersome cross-departmental approval process, where poor coordination between departments means even the clearest intentions cannot withstand the prolonged wait.

These bottlenecks cause projects that should naturally come to fruition to slip through our fingers time and time again.

Investment promotion is not just about attracting projects; it is a competition of service, responsiveness, and systematic operational capabilities.

Only by truly putting ourselves in the shoes of enterprises, streamlining internal and external processes, and delivering substantive professional services can we ensure projects are willing to come and successfully take root.