Memo+24+Describing+Practices+(Dan+F)

I could write over 100 pages on my experiences in Ghana, in fact I already have, but I am unsure how to protect the identity of those involved since enough work could allow someone to easily trace the program and not giving enough context will detract form my credibility and possible alienate sympathizers. It’s true that everything that could go wrong on a development project probably went wrong on this trip to Ghana, so unfortunately it is almost too good an example. It may even be hard to believe. I will have to counteract this story with a more successful one of some kind or I am afraid that the project will be insulted more then the system of understanding that allowed for it (which is my true target). I will speak to the question of why development/technology transfer attempts fail. The project was a solar reflector for boiling water and Adinkra Ink. 10.Insufficient amount of time was allotted to do the project incountry.
 * 1) The month of July is a rainy season in Ghana meaning that there are few mosquitos, but unfortunately it also means there is very little sun. It is known as the cloudy season and in Kumasi, where we were staying, it is cloudier then anywhere else in the country during this season. Unfortunately that was where the university we were partnered with was located.
 * 2) The reflector was repurposed from a failed charcoal project that was repurposed to produce ink (a very very niche market). The efficiency of the reflector was to good to produce ink despite the fact that we didn’t have enough sun to even reach boiling point.
 * 3) The tracking system was electronic and required a solar panel and a battery that could be easily stolen and thoroughly complicated what the Ghanaian’s would be required to do
 * 4) The project was micromanaged to the point that little was accomplished because designs kept getting shot down despite the consensus of the group.
 * 5) There were a lot of hidden costs for the Ghanaians that strained out relationship with them and made them want to quit.
 * 6) The solar reflector was repurposed to make ink instead of charcoal because the grant would have been considered a waste if a more efficient stove type had been used.
 * 7) The grant was being used to fund another project that was not known about by the grant providers
 * 8) The professor only stayed half the time the students did (not necessarily a con).
 * 9) Materials for reflector were not always available locally (specifically the reflective material itself which is the most important part)

Positive things done There are many more points to make but for now this should suffice.
 * 1) Established that there was a demand for the project if it could compete
 * 2) Local students were involved in the process
 * 3) Local students stayed in the same accommodations as foreign students for the first time in the projects history
 * 4) Local contacts were already established before our arrival
 * 5) Group met for a semester before to establish plans and develop prototype
 * 6) Work was done to try and get the project to continue after students left (except for the fact that tools were hidden again so that next years group could used them)