← Back to Home ← All three readiness dimensions
PRISM · Methodology
People

People Readiness Levels

PeoML · 5 levels · team composition & community partnership

PeoML describes how the team and its community partnerships have matured — from equity stated as an aspirational value (Level 1) through community co-ownership of the work (Level 5). Use PeoML when the question is: do the people building and overseeing this product reflect — and have accountability to — the population it's meant to serve?

1
Aspirational
Equity stated
▸

Equity is named as a value in mission, vision, or pitch language. The team has not yet operationalized that value into who is on the team or who is consulted.

Self-assessment questions

  • Is equity, including the population your product is meant to serve, named explicitly in your mission or theory of change?
  • Can the team articulate, beyond marketing language, what equity means for your specific R&D project?
  • Is there at least one team member with explicit responsibility for thinking about equity (not as a side role, but as an accountable function)?
To advance to PeoML 2: move from naming equity to consulting community members from the priority population on the underlying design choices, not just user-testing them after you have built the product. Document at least one design decision shaped by that consultation.
2
Consultative
Community informed
▸

Community members from the priority population have been consulted at key R&D moments. Consultation is one-directional; community members do not yet shape decisions.

Self-assessment questions

  • Have community members from the priority population been consulted on the product concept and approach? Not just user-tested, but engaged on the underlying design choices?
  • Have those consultations shaped at least one substantive design decision (a feature, a measurement, a partnership choice) in a way you can document?
  • Is there a documented mechanism for ongoing community consultation, not just one-time interviews at funder request?
To advance to PeoML 3: move community members from consultation to formal, compensated presence in defined R&D moments, and into team composition itself, including in technical and decision-making roles.
3
Participatory
Community present
▸

Community members from the priority population are present in defined R&D moments and in some team functions. They participate but do not yet co-lead.

Self-assessment questions

  • Do community members from the priority population(s) hold formal, paid roles on the team or advisory structure?
  • Are community members present in defined R&D moments such as prototype review, evidence interpretation, or roadmap planning?
  • Does the team's composition, not just its advisors, reflect the population the product is meant to serve, including in technical and decision-making roles?
To advance to PeoML 4: shift community members from participation to co-leadership. Establish documented decision rights, symmetric accountability for outcomes, and compensation commensurate with their decision-making role, not just consultant or honorarium rates.
4
Partnership
Community partnership
▸

Community members are co-leaders on substantive R&D decisions and are accountable for outcomes alongside the founding team.

Self-assessment questions

  • Are community members co-leaders on substantive R&D decisions, with documented decision rights (not just "input")?
  • Is community accountability symmetric: are community partners accountable for outcomes alongside the founding team, with shared metrics?
  • Are community partners compensated commensurate with their decision-making role, not at consultant or honorarium rates?
To advance to PeoML 5: embed community standing in governance such as bylaws, board composition, equity arrangements. Share decision-making power on the most consequential decisions: pivots, scale, monetization, intellectual property.
5
Co-ownership
Community co-ownership
▸

Community holds shared decision-making power and equity in outcomes. Governance, ownership, and revenue-sharing reflect community standing as co-owners.

Self-assessment questions

  • Do governance documents (e.g., bylaws, board composition, equity arrangements) reflect community standing as co-owners of the work?
  • Is decision-making power shared on the most consequential decisions (pivots, scale, monetization, intellectual property)?
  • Is there a revenue, equity, or asset-sharing arrangement that gives the community served a stake in the long-term value the venture creates? Or other non-monetary but high-value compensation (e.g., co-authorship of publications, credentials that can be used for career advancement)?
Top of the ladder. A team at PeoML 5 has converted the language of equity into structural co-ownership. PRL and ProML are the next questions: does the prototype maturity and process discipline match the team maturity?
Try PRISM with your own project
Open PRISM Self-Assessment Compare with PRL & ProML Prototype Readiness → Process Readiness →
PRISM · Portfolio Readiness Insight & Scoring Methodology · SETA-ED
PeoML developed by SETA-ED, drawing on community-based participatory research and ARPA tiered-support practice. Citation: Uncapher, M. (2026). Education People Readiness Levels (PeoML). SETA-ED.