It is said that 'Failing to plan is planning to fail'. This is something that we often come across in development projects. Most planning works executed by the government for infrastructure works, such as roads and buildings, are limited to the Detailed Project Report (DPR). To start with, DPRs often have a bad reputation. This year, we were tasked with a budget to build a government building, and not to my surprise, its DPR was absurd! Firstly, the budget ceiling was one fifth of what the DPR required. Secondly, the design was, let's say, more like a hotel than a government building, which should put public service delivery at its core. Simply put, it was of no use. Yet, this is only the secondary problem. The primary issue is that the land for the building is still uncertain, which is again another classic failure in planning. This tendency to first budget and then seek land is a major reason why the budget for public buildings freeze. If we were to generalise such infrastructure projects of small to medium scale and exclude mega projects, planning is often limited to DPR with technical detailing only, and that too with below-par results. But, planning for public infrastructure is a multi-dimensional issue that has social implications, especially when we consider projects that are close to the public, such as urban roads, public buildings, or parks. The foremost task in planning such projects then should be to engage in cross sectoral dialogue and create prior consensus. Going back to our case, we're currently working with a committee from cross-sectoral government offices such as the Survey Office, District Administration, and local government to build consensus for the required land for the afore mentioned building, and the results look promising at the moment. But had this been done earlier, and only then had the government allocated the budget, there would have been maximum utilisation of public resources. Another case involved the construction of a school building in Solukhumbu, and when we looked up the existing technical report for the building, it was really disappointing. According to that report, the building was to be made of bricks. Had they asked even the school management board or even anyone in this case, they would have known that constructing the building from local materials such as stone and timber with safe structural methods would be more economical and warmer for the students. On the bright side however, we had the opportunity to develop a bus park, and before its execution there was a cross-sectoral dialogue between service users, local government, and our entity. We were able to come up with a design that would cater to the needs and traffic requirements of the area through collective planning. By engaging in this sort of pre-dialogue/participation, the meaningfulness of the project was justified, and there are lesser chances now of any future conflict, which makes the execution easier and more fruitful. Sometimes, I wonder how wonderful it would be if we were to execute small to medium scale infrastructure projects by first doing a pre-feasibility study by the related government office through in-house methods. After that there would be cross-sectoral dialogue between the stakeholders and a broad consensus would be built, where the local government would take an active role as it is closest to the people, and such type of projects directly benefit the people. Then, a fair detailed study would be conducted that includes social factors also. Once this due diligence is done, then the budget would be allocated based on what is needed and not on mere whim. While this would be ideal, most projects often go haywire because we go the opposite way, knowingly or unknowingly. There's a DPR that's pointing eastwards, the budget that's westwards, and a dialogue that doesn't exist at all. However, it's not that the government is unaware of this. The introduction of the Project Bank system to ensure that only projects having completed the feasibility study enter the budgetary pipeline is a step in the right direction. However, its execution is still tokenistic in nature and needs much improvement and capacity building at the implementation level. With the present state of affairs, there is a strong mandate to deliver. For this, the optimisation of public resources and the timely completion of development projects is essential. The completion of such development projects should be seen in light of the whole project cycle starting right from the planning phase. There is a tendency to view any failure or delay of such projects as shortcomings in its execution, where we find fault in either the contractor or the contracting government entity or both. While this is also true, majority of these issues can be traced back right into the planning stage. For this, there needs to be a change in perception, where we ceaselessly chase mere numbers. There's this question that's raised at the end of every fiscal year to every government office involved in infrastructure projects, 'What is the financial progress of your office?'. Those with higher ones are rewarded and those on the lower side are scolded at, and this loop continues year after year without ever asking the question, 'Is your office giving what the public really needs in the first place?'. Only when this is a 'Yes', then does the question of financial progress become relevant. And if you ask me what do you need to get to this, I'd say, 'Political grit at the centre and capacity building at the implementation level.'