Midterm evaluation report of regional development training II, private sector

Midterm evaluation covers the period 6/83-10/85 and is based on document review, site visits, and interviews with trainees, businesspersons, and project personnel. Although BIMAP has provided valuable, practical consulting services to 42 businesses in the region and created many new relationships with governments, businesses, Chambers of Commerce, and other local organizations, several important constraints remain. While BIMAP staff are skilled and knowledgeable, problems in scheduling and resource allocation have resulted in poor follow-up. And, as many clients and liaison groups have only murky ideas about the project"s benefits, limits, and policies, there have been instances of client dissatisfaction, unreasonable demands, and tense relations. Introducing the program into the various countries has consumed far more time and resources than had been anticipated. Conflicts of interest and lack of incentives have prevented the formal coordinating bodies described in the PP (e.g., advisory committees) from providing effective dialogue and support. Moreover, there is a good deal of confusion in the field about the several TA programs available from A.I.D. and other donors, which are often seen as competitive or duplicative. This creates a difficult entry situation for BIMAP, a problem which is compounded by the programs" differentiated fee structures, which often bear little (or no) relationship to the value of service provided. If the project is to meet its full potential, it must have significant in-country support, which in turn requires the creation of mutually beneficial relationships with local organizations, through, e.g., provision of fees or training to the cooperating organization, as well as a stake in program growth; BIMAP has been reluctant to integrate its activities with those of other organizations. Stronger management support from RDO/C could help BIMAP broaden its strength - one-on-one TA - into a comprehensive regional program. Implementation in general has been made more difficult by the lack of a fully collaborative relationship between BIMAP and RDO/C. Lessons learned are: (1) steps must be taken to ensure that a fully collaborative relationship occurs among the network of people and groups whose support is assumed in the project design; (2) sufficient time, resources, and other support must be allocated to create an infrastructure of coordination and support even at the expense of more visible short-term results; and (3) clear operating agreements are essential for the communication and understanding vital to successful implementation.