Inside the NIP’s turnaround – from 59% to 93% TAT

When turnaround-time (TAT) performance across Namibia’s national laboratory network moved from 59% to 93%, the improvement represented more than an operational milestone. It essentially meant clinicians could receive critical evidence sooner, strengthening their ability to diagnose illness and determine treatment. Yet the most important question was not what the figures said about the institution, but whether patients experienced a faster and more dependable service.Turnaround time is not an abstract management indicator. It measures how quickly clinicians receive the evidence they need to diagnose illness and determine the appropriate treatment. But this TAT is influenced by a myriad of factors.The scale and urgency of the challenge is evident in four figures, 9.7% of Namibian adults earn more than N$11 000 per month, more than 80% of Namibians depend on public health facilities and laboratory results influence about 70% of clinical decisions.The other is about 40% of Namibia’s health workforce serves more than 80% of the population, relying on the public health sector, while more than 60% of the health workforce serve the remaining 20% of the population accessing private health care.To me, these figures underscored the consequence, the urgency, and the scale of the burden - but they also made consistency and equitable access indispensable.Against that backdrop, I saw the national laboratory network not as a back-office function but as critical health infrastructure. I believed any claim of reform had to be judged by a demanding standard: whether services remained available, accessible, and dependable in the public health facilities, serving the country’s most vulnerable patients.We acutely engaged in the turnaround anchored on three levers: people, process, and technology - a famous framework often described as the ‘Golden Triangle’. As a team, we knew the approach would be credible only if we changed all three simultaneously. New equipment alone would not repair weak workflows; redesigned processes would achieve little without empowered staff; and leadership development initiatives would fail if the operating system remained unreliable.We conducted section-by-section and department-by-department deep-dive reviews to trace visible breakdowns to their root causes. I considered this more searching than treating missed targets as isolated incidents. It allowed us to test whether recurring problems originated in staffing, procurement, logistics, people, workflow, or technology—and whether our corrective action addressed the cause rather than the symptom. This was not an overnight assignment; it took considerable time and effort.People: We implemented a people strategy - invested in leadership development, culture change, and coaching. We introduced supply chain &amp; logistics expertise and created a graduate development program (GDP). The GDP included a qualified medical technologist, who often did not have a job, placed at the 13 one-man laboratories for 24 months to gain job market experience but also to enhance the solo operation. Our aim was to strengthen both immediate performance and the next generation of institutional capability.Process: We identified and mapped business processes, reviewed how work moved across the critical functions, and targeted areas for improvement and sustained management. We paid particular attention to blood sample movements, stock management, supply chain, and logistics because laboratory performance depends not only on testing but also on the reliable movement of supplies, samples, and information.Technology: We assessed the state of laboratory and ICT infrastructure, planned upgrades, and invested systematically in digital transformation. We replaced testing platforms while strengthening the broader technology environment to deliver results faster. We automated critical processes.For me, the strongest evidence of our work was not the strategy itself, but the discipline we used to enforce it. We formulated and monitored implementation plans monthly, quarterly, and annually against strategic objectives. It was not just a cosmetic strategic plan; it was a daily mantra. That cadence mattered because public-sector reform often falters between announcement and execution. Regular gauging made slippage harder to hide, responsibility easier to assign, and accountability more visible. Every week, we reviewed TAT across 37 laboratories and announced the strongest results, and I delightfully witnessed how performance moved from good to great! This visibility propelled the entire organization to focus on its mandate.The logic that guided us was simple but powerful: when individuals became more effective, teams improved; when teams improved, departments performed better; and when departments worked together, the organization became effective, and ultimately the laboratory system became more capable of saving lives.The central lesson I took from this experience is not simply that transformation can work. I never saw effective operational continuity and institutional transformation as competing aims; both were conditions of a credible turnaround. It is that reform must proceed without losing focus on the basics and/or destabilising the essential service patients need every day. A long-term redesign has value only if service is not interrupted during the reinvention.In a nutshell, while the improved turnaround time proved vital, it created great momentum to become the greatest benchmark regionally.*Kapena Tjombonde is the former CEO of NIP and writes in her personal capacity.

Inside the NIP’s turnaround – from 59% to 93% TAT

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-28

Please login to leave a comment

Inside the NIP’s turnaround – from 59% to 93% TAT

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-28

Please login to leave a comment

Subscription Required to Access Content ×

Subscription Required to Access Content