Consider whether the implementation timeline will enable a foundation for success. The RSRCs were facilities built for a social purpose but because construction started late and continued until the end of the compact, it was not possible to test that social purpose, identify where challenges existed, and help the RSRCs remedy them and prepare for overall sustainability. Also, hiring delays meant that not all RSRC staff received the compact-funded training. MCC was aware the implementation timelines posed risks to the investment, but the decision was made to proceed anyway. The expectation was that qualified staff would work in the facilities and the issues would work themselves out. The final evaluation report indicates that training opportunities have continued to be uneven post-compact and were officially stopped due to Namibia’s economic downturn. The evaluation also noted an unrelated failure resulting from the compressed implementation schedule, whereby a generator was delivered to Ohangwena but unconnected until sometime post-compact. The ironic part of this failure is that Ohangwena has failing solar panels and for a long time could not use the generator that was onsite and designated as a backup power source. One solution to challenges resulting from compressed implementation timelines is to bring more resources to bear early in the compact period when MCAs are managing numerous contract actions so delays like this do not occur. Another solution is to be more realistic about what can be accomplished within a given implementation period. It is very difficult to get partner countries to agree to reduce the scope of a program. However, racing toward the finish line does not generally position MCC investments for success, so MCC and partner country governments need to consider carefully whether to proceed if the implementation timeline will be tight.
Lesson Learned