The word “community” used to mean something simple. It was a village, a neighborhood, a small town, or a circle of people who lived close to each other and shared the same resources and customs. Early development programs were built on this idea. They imagined a single group with shared problems and common goals, ready to work together if given the right tools or funding. That picture was never perfect, but it was simple enough to design around.
The reality today is far more layered. A single community might contain people who spend much of their time online, young professionals who travel for work, elders who hold traditional authority, and small business owners who are connected to global markets. Technology has erased boundaries and blurred roles. What used to be local is now linked to distant economies and social networks. People bring different experiences, values, and ambitions to the same table.
This shift does not make old ideas useless, but it changes the ground on which they stand. When a project enters a town now, it does not just enter a physical place. It steps into a web of conversations, smartphones, and cultural currents that move faster than any plan. To work well, we need to look at community not as a container but as a living system, shaped by history and driven by change.
How We Tried to Help: The Framework Era
For many years, development was planned from the top. Governments, donors, and agencies made decisions and delivered programs. This built roads and clinics, but it also left many people out. By the 1970s and 1980s, critics began to argue for participation. The idea was simple but powerful. Let the people who live with the problems help define the answers.
Several approaches grew from this call. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) encouraged outsiders to learn directly from villagers, often using simple tools like maps and diagrams. Participatory Budgeting (PB) let citizens decide how public money should be spent, starting in Brazil and spreading worldwide. Community Driven Development (CDD) gave local groups control over funds and planning, often supported by large donors. Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) flipped the focus to strengths instead of needs, asking what people already have that can grow into something bigger. Participatory Action Research (PAR) treated community members as co-researchers, building knowledge and solutions together. Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) mapped out how actions could lead to long term change.
PLSD, or Participatory Local Social Development, was another voice in this period. It emphasized the need to build norms, organizations, and resources in balance. It came with an academic rigor that others lacked, framing participation not just as a practice but as a discipline. All of these models shared a core belief: that projects last longer and work better when the people affected help to shape them.
Strengths and Limits in a Slower World
These frameworks mattered because they corrected mistakes. They showed that listening mattered, that ownership was not optional, and that outsiders rarely see the whole picture. They taught agencies to sit in meetings under a tree, to walk with farmers, to draw plans on the ground, and to share decision making. Many villages gained water systems, schools, or markets that lasted because people cared for them as their own.
But these approaches were built for a slower world. They assumed that communities were relatively stable. They counted on face to face meetings and patient cycles of trust. The tools were simple and powerful, but they were designed for places where news traveled by word of mouth and where local leaders could gather most people in one spot. Manuals were written, training programs were built, and a certain pattern set in.
With each success came structure. Donors wanted to measure progress, so steps were formalized. Agencies wanted to teach, so curricula were designed. Universities studied and refined the methods. What began as a flexible set of practices slowly became more like recipes. The risk was clear. When the world changed, these recipes could not always change with it.
Disruption and Acceleration
The ground shifted in ways few expected. Communities are no longer just places. They are groups on messaging apps, clusters of families spread across cities and countries, or networks formed around shared work and interests. A small town might have a Facebook group more active than its town hall. A local co-op might sell through an online store to buyers far away. When projects arrive, they are meeting people who are already connected, informed, and sometimes critical.
Technology has added speed and visibility. A meeting can be recorded, a decision challenged online, a success shared globally. AI tools now analyze crops, predict floods, or translate plans into many languages. People gather data themselves. This creates opportunity but also new pressure. The traditional pace of community meetings and donor cycles can feel slow, even irrelevant.
The frameworks that served us well were designed for worlds that moved in seasons. Today they must work in days and sometimes hours. Their principles are sound, but their formats need to stretch. Without that, they risk feeling like visitors from another era, well meaning but behind the times.
Difference Inside the Circle
Even in the most familiar village, people do not see the world the same way. Spiral Dynamics and similar models give language to this. Some people value order and rules (Blue). Others are driven by enterprise and results (Orange). Some hold power by charisma or force (Red), while others honor tradition and kinship (Purple). Younger members may push for fairness and dialogue (Green), while a few may seek knowledge and systems (Yellow). These are not strict categories, but they remind us that a community is many minds in one place.
In practice this means that a project is rarely speaking to one kind of audience. A rule heavy program may comfort the Blue but frustrate the Orange. A push for innovation may excite the Orange but unsettle the Purple. Community workers may carry their own memes too, often leaning to fairness and dialogue. Governments may stress law and order. Donors may prize efficiency. All these layers meet in one room.
This matters because participation is never neutral. When we teach, fund, or organize, we are introducing values. We are praising some things and asking others to change. The strongest frameworks often stumble here because they assume alignment. They are methods for action but not always for navigating difference.
Why Agility Is Now Non-Negotiable
The world does not wait for our schedules. Communities learn and change faster than reports can be written. This means any framework must have the ability to adjust. It must be less like a recipe and more like a toolbox. It must invite feedback early and often.
The best way forward may be to think in modules. Borrow PRA’s listening tools, PB’s decision models, ABCD’s strengths lens, PLSD’s cultural awareness, PAR’s co-learning, and PIPA’s planning maps, but use them as parts, not as a script. The facilitator’s role is not to enforce a method but to sense which part fits the moment.
Agility also means humility. No team can know the whole picture. Projects will only work when they accept that the community already has ideas, networks, and ways of seeing the world. They are not experiments. They are partners. The job is to create space for those capacities to surface, whether through a meeting in a schoolhouse or a poll in a chat group.
Sketching a Next-Generation Approach
What might this look like in practice? Picture a project that begins with mapping value memes, not to judge but to understand. A facilitator meets elders and young people, charts their views, and listens. Instead of a one time survey, a mobile tool gathers voices weekly. Data is shared openly. The project recognizes that not all members will agree, so plans have layers. Some funds go to safe, rule bound initiatives. Some are set aside for experiments. Some support the quiet but important bonds of tradition.
Technology could help, but the spirit matters more. Spiral Dynamics, social media, AI analytics, and old fashioned listening can sit at the same table. PLSD’s emphasis on norms and capacity, PRA’s openness, ABCD’s celebration of gifts, PB’s transparency, all have something to teach. The difference is speed and openness. Feedback is not filed away but shapes the next move.
This kind of approach does not erase conflict or guarantee success. But it treats people not as static groups but as dynamic actors, connected to worlds bigger than their borders. It is honest about difference. It expects surprise. It is willing to learn.
Walking With Communities, Not Ahead of Them
The world of development has always been about more than money or plans. It is about people and the forces that shape them. We have learned much from the past, from the early days of PRA to the formal insights of PLSD. They showed us that voice matters and that nothing lasts unless it is owned by those who live it.
But today, we must widen our view. Communities are connected, fast moving, and full of diverse minds. They hold entrepreneurs, elders, officials, dreamers, and skeptics, sometimes all in one family. They are local and global at once. To work in such spaces requires more than tools. It requires curiosity, respect, and the willingness to step aside when the best answers come from someone else.
The old frameworks are not wrong. They are like well made paths. We can still walk them, but we must be ready to leave the trail when the terrain changes. Community development now is less about building on empty ground and more about joining a conversation already in motion. To do it well is to listen, learn, and act as one part of a living whole.
Image by Anh Le
Tom’s Blog 