Let’s face it, high-quality industrial sites are becoming harder to find, and one unique byproduct of that scarcity is heightened attention on the bureaucrats.
For years, great sites covered up a lot of bad behavior. Process flaws like missed deadlines, sloppy communication, and internal friction don’t matter much if the land, power, workforce, and numbers are perfect. But as options narrow, relationships, execution, and credibility take over. And from the corporate side of the table, what’s being revealed isn’t always flattering.Inside most site searches, the decision rarely comes down to choosing a great option. It comes down to choosing the least flawed one. Every location has issues. Every community has constraints. The real question for companies is which problems they can live with—and which ones signal trouble down the road.
That distinction matters more now than it ever has.
As site scarcity increases, corporate teams and their advisors spend less time comparing assets and more time evaluating how a place actually performs. Who communicates clearly? Who hits deadlines? Who understands the scope of the request? Who makes the process feel collaborative instead of combative?
And, pay attention to this uncomfortable truth: winning a project doesn’t necessarily mean a community performed well.
I’ve worked on plenty of projects that landed in locations where, candidly, I would cringe at the idea of working with the same group again. Missed deadlines. Poor communication. No internal process. Sometimes a bait-and-switch on fees or agreements. When a site is perfect, companies will tolerate that friction. When it isn’t, the process becomes the differentiator.
I’ve worked on plenty of projects that landed in locations where, candidly, I would cringe at the idea of working with the same group again. Missed deadlines. Poor communication. No internal process. Sometimes a bait-and-switch on fees or agreements. None of that stops a deal when the site is perfect. But it absolutely matters when it isn’t.
About ten years ago, I won a project—and then learned the other side didn’t want to work with me again. That moment changed how I look at this business. If I lose, I want to know how I got beat. If I win, I want to know why—and what I could have done better.
As site scarcity shifts corporate decisions from parcels to people, execution—not assets—is becoming the real differentiator.
At the end of almost every project, usually after I’ve bought the other party a drink to encourage honesty, I ask a simple question: What could I have done better?
That question exposes you. You have to be ready for the answer. But that exposure is the price of getting better. I’ve never been asked that question in person by someone on the other side.
The consulting world doesn’t give us the luxury of ignoring feedback. We don’t sell sites. We sell ourselves. If we don’t improve, we get pushed out. That’s why there are hundreds of people who call themselves site selection consultants, but only a few dozen with twenty years of experience.
Some public-sector organizations haven’t felt that pressure yet—and it shows.
For most of my career, the Southeast set the standard for quality teams. That reputation was earned. But turnover, wage pressure, and complacency have changed the landscape. Many of the best public-sector project managers now work for consulting firms or the companies they once helped recruit.
Meanwhile, other regions—the Midwest and Northeast, which I never thought I’d say—have reached their stride.
The irony is that some of the biggest “winners” today are masking serious internal issues. They keep landing projects because they control rare sites, not because the process is good. Utilities and rail partners often step in quietly to keep deals alive when state or local efforts falter.
Here’s the risk: companies don’t know any of this.
Consultants can navigate around a bad project manager. We know who to call and where decisions actually get made. But most projects are still company-led. When a company gets assigned the wrong person—the one who doesn’t communicate, doesn’t care, or doesn’t understand the process—they don’t know a better option exists. They just move on.
Winning a project should be celebrated. Then you should immediately watch the game tape. Even blowouts deserve review. If you don’t know why you won, you don’t know whether you’ll win again.
Overcommunicate.
Confirm you understand the scope. Ask questions early.
If there’s a flaw, say it out loud. It’s our job to find it anyway.
And don’t hide mistakes—own them. Hiding them always makes things worse.
Above all: care.
If this is just a job to you, companies will know. And once sites stop carrying bad processes, caring won’t be optional anymore.
