Making a difference
Foreign policy and aid are still shaped by the assumptions of outsiders.
Programmes designed from the outside are built on a specific idea of what success looks like. It rarely aligns with the community's.
The knowledge to correct that exists, but it rarely reaches the room. Programmes get designed in the dark.
A structural problem
Including local voices matters. But participation is not the same as contextual expertise.
The insight that can change a programme’s direction comes from someone who understands both the topic and the place – specifically enough to accurately challenge assumptions.
In practice, finding that expertise every time is nearly impossible. So teams fall back on what is available: national staff, a familiar consultant, or someone in headquarters from the diaspora.
Their insights matter. But they represent only a narrow slice of what a community actually contains. Communities are not monolithic.
The infrastructure for finding the right expertise, matched to the specific community, topic, and context, has never been built.
When plans fall short
Over the last decade, 83% of World Bank programmes had major inadequacies in their results frameworks. The ones that worked did something the others did not: they grounded objectives in on-the-ground realities of their specific locations.
Source: Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)
Colonial legacies
The cost is greater than budget
Ineffective programmes erode trust with the communities they aim to support.
They give donors reason to question whether the work is effective – and whether commitments to localisation are taken seriously.
In the worst cases, projects become out-of-touch examples of the very colonial development practices the sector is trying to move beyond, damaging the organisation’s reputation.
Harnessing existing networks
The knowledge to prevent this already exists
Researchers who have spent decades on a topic and region, some from those communities themselves, hold insights that could transform how programmes are designed.
But that knowledge rarely travels. Some is published in lengthy technical papers few practitioners ever read. Some never gets written down at all.
So decisions get made on whatever knowledge happens to be available and dominant. Not the knowledge that would actually help.
The missing mechanism
The right expertise, at the moment before the plan gets fixed.
Acume connects professionals with contextual experts: researchers who know both the topic and the specific place. Not a generalist. The person who has spent years on exactly this topic, in exactly this place.
When teams have access to that expertise at the right moment, then assumptions get tested before they are locked in. Before the policy gets fixed. Before the theory of change is drafted. One conversation changes what gets built.
From discovery to discussion
Some questions have answers that already exist. Some need a conversation.
We give you both: Browse the evidence. Book experts.
Briefs written specifically to give practitioners the context, findings, and implications they need. In a format designed for decision-making, not peer review.
Research briefs
Start browsing
Matched to your challenge. Scheduled when you need it. At a fraction of the cost of a consultant on a six-month contract.
Expert calls
A one-hour call with the researcher who knows your specific context. Before the assumptions get locked in.
Talk to us