The following suggestions focus on how to improve decision-making processes and project management to reduce project delays caused by risk aversion or over-caution, rather than simply blaming the problem on a certain region. In fact, there is diversity within any group, and policy making should be based on objective data and scientific analysis, rather than hearsay or stereotypes. Here are some practices for reference: 1. Investigation and evaluation • Before promoting policies, a comprehensive and objective data survey should be conducted to understand whether there are delays in specific projects and decision-making links, and whether the reasons for the delays are related to risk assessment, decision-making processes, communication efficiency or other management issues. • Use quantitative analysis and questionnaires to conduct comparative studies on decision-makers from different backgrounds and regions to clarify whether the problem is widespread or only a case phenomenon, and avoid formulating discriminatory or one-sided policies based on hearsay. 2. Optimize decision-making processes • Develop and promote standardized and process-based decision-making mechanisms to ensure that each link in the decision-making process has clear time nodes and division of responsibilities. • Introduce a phased evaluation system and risk warning mechanism, conduct regular reviews of key project nodes, and allow adjustments to decisions when necessary to balance the relationship between robustness and efficiency. 3. Establish incentive and feedback mechanisms • Design appropriate incentives to encourage decision makers to make timely decisions based on sufficient analysis, and remind and improve situations where adverse consequences are caused by excessive delays. • Establish a cross-departmental and cross-regional communication platform to introduce more diverse perspectives in the exchange of opinions from multiple parties, which can not only improve the quality of decision-making, but also help reduce delays caused by excessive caution. 4. Training and capacity building • Organize professional training and experience exchange for project management and risk assessment to help decision makers understand modern project management methods and tools for dealing with risks, thereby improving their judgment and decision-making capabilities in the face of uncertainty. • Encourage the use of pilot projects and two-way feedback mechanisms, summarize experience through actual cases, and reduce unnecessary delays caused by personal or inertial factors. 5. Cross-regional expert consultation and cooperation • Encourage experts from different regions to participate in decision-making discussions and establish a cross-regional decision support system. Through the wisdom of a diverse team, it is possible to balance various risks and avoid conservative decisions caused by a single perspective. • Establish an expert advisory committee to provide scientific advice on major decisions, and at the same time provide objective evaluation and adjustment suggestions for possible hesitations in the decision-making process. In short, the key is to establish a scientific, transparent and efficient management system, rather than designing special policies for a certain group. Only after the problem is objectively and fully verified, can the decision-making process be improved, training be enhanced and a reasonable incentive mechanism be formulated to truly reduce the impact of decision-making delays on project progress.