Great question that I know others are addressing. In my opinion the answer is not framed in terms of "either/or" ,but rather, "both/and". The idea of "community" suggests a socio-psycho-cultural identity. The notion of "development" suggests a recombination or rearrangement of existing means. I suspect that the development organizations you mention find their challenges in reconciling the community with their notion of the proper arrangement of productive resources, given the socio-psycho-cultural imperatives of the subject community(endogenous forces); imperatives that drive behavior beneath the consciousness of the developing community, but also, the same force of imperatives(exogenours) underlie the behaviors of those who would be the drivers and implementers of development in that community. I suggest a contribution from the ideas and themes of Systems Theory,i.e., that the evolving answer to your question might be helpfully developed with the addition of the notions of "homeostasis" and "isomorphism". And the challenge might be reframed as one which must grasp the "techniques" of adjusting the socio-technical relationships of the subject community in a way that convinces them to modify their traditional production relationships so that their patterns of maintaining their existence and reproducing themselves are relatively more efficient and adapted to the larger political communities notion of normal. I've probably lent more confusion to the question than light. Hope this helps.

I agree that we should think in terms of both/and, not either/or; meaning that relationship building and technology are both important, naturally interrelated, interdependent, aspects of building caring, empowering, flourishing communities, locally and globally. Technology should be used to promote, not impede or replace, the development of caring relationships and meaningful interpersonal communication. People connecting to one another via internet and/or other technologies, or face-to-face, should not relate to one another in a mechanical (machine-like) manner, but, instead, should share and relate to what is experientially genuine, vibrantly alive, sincere, empathic, compassionate, spontaneous, insightful, and inspiring in themselves and one another, as in Martin Buber's distinction between the I-Thou relationship and the I-It relationship. Relating in an overly mechanical, programmed, routinized manner impedes rather than facilitates the development of compassion, empathy, and the development of a deeply caring, empowering human community. In my recently published book, Deepening Your Personal Relationships and good communication, I discuss how to develop psychologically healthy, deeply caring, experientially/emotionally close, interpersonal relationships, with good communication, i.e., open, honest, sincere, meaningful, constructive, nonjudgmental, non-blaming, respectful, empathic, direct/non-evasive communication. In Appendix K of that book, I discuss the process of "Extending Principles of Fulfilling Dyadic Relationships to Our Whole Society."

i will attempt to engage in this question as I also believe both/and in opposition to either/or. I have nowhere near the schooling the people before have displayed, but I do have an opinion in that technology is an obvious necessity in our our ever growing world. Just look at the third world countries and lack of technology. I do have to say without building healthy relationship technology would not mean a whole lot. It would stand alone in only those familiar would move forward and many would be left behind. Relationship building would help to spread that knowledge around. It is already apparent in today;s society if you do not have at least some computer savvy you will not get far, not to mention the lives being saved by new discoveries every day. It is an exciting concept and I am looking forward to reading more and as my schooling progresses I sure hope to understanding much more in the future. thanks for you patience with me.

 Darren Skahl