Before a policy can be implemented, there is a need to test the validity of the said plan or policy. For example, it is important to determine if the program objectives listed under a particular project are achievable. Therefore, if a particular policy fails in the testing phase, then there is a need to re-evaluate the policy. When applied to government-funded projects, then it is imperative to revise the goals stated in the said plan.
Policymakers must make sure that objectives and goals must be realistic. Policymakers must not be tempted to develop programs and projects that impress people but cannot be implemented because the objectives were based on an idealistic view of the world but fail to recognize the problems inherent in a particular environment. There is a need to have an objective analysis of the project. Thus, at the end of the hypothesis testing phase, policymakers must revisit their plans and modify them based on the results of the evaluation process.
It is easy to understand why project managers sometimes forego the evaluation phase of the project. The evaluation phase is a time-consuming process. It also requires back-breaking work depending on the scope of the project. Thus, it is easy to simply go ahead with the plan without determining its feasibility concerning time and financial resources. Another major reason why government-funded projects sometimes suffer from the absence of this type of evaluation mechanism. In a publicly funded project, the most important thing is the source of funds. When the project is completed, those who are involved focus their attention on the next project because no one forces them to be accountable for their actions.
In a private company, those who analyze a project’s cost-efficiency also provide some form of reward or punishment for those who misuse company funds. In a publicly funded project, it is often difficult to punish those who did not do their best to ensure a project’s sustainability. It is oftentimes difficult to reprimand someone who works for the government and enjoys the privilege of security of tenure. In a private company, there is no security of tenure because when an employee or even a CEO underperforms, a notice is given to call the attention of the said person. At the same time, the company can withheld bonuses and other privileges to compel that person to work harder.