Tools Sustainability Dashboard
Audio Project Manager (APM)
Moderate (2.29)Manages Oral Bible Translation projects
Web and desktop application for managing speech audio files in oral Bible translation, storying, and transcription projects. Provides a flexible, hybrid audio-text workflow with strong integration capabilities.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Funding reliance on ETEN Lab/General RFP-based support creates moderate risk if priorities shift. However, the tool demonstrates good cost-effectiveness in serving oral Bible translation needs.
High technical adaptability with proven integration into partner toolchains (e.g., Render, Paratext). Built with modern web technologies and modular architecture allows for rapid adaptation to evolving translation needs.
User experience remains a common point of feedback. While functional, UI improvements could significantly enhance adoption. The tool serves its technical purpose but could be more intuitive for non-technical users.
Offline-first capability via desktop/PWA, with mobile access through partner apps like AKUO. Strong support for diverse audio workflows makes it valuable across different contexts.
Open-source MIT license ensures long-term stewardship potential. However, external contributor engagement is low despite open-source posture; a larger development community could strengthen continuity.
Uses standard web technologies and provides clear APIs for integration. Good documentation supports developer adoption, though broader community engagement could enhance reusability.
Strong alignment with ETEN and Bible translation movement goals, with active contributions to interoperability discussions. Directly supports oral Bible translation methodologies critical to reaching all languages.
Key Strengths
- High technical adaptability with proven integrations
- Open-source MIT license ensuring long-term viability
- Offline-first capability with Progressive Web App support
- Strong alignment with oral Bible translation goals
- Flexible audio-text hybrid workflows
Key Recommendations
- Diversify funding sources beyond ETEN support
- Prioritize UI/UX improvements based on user feedback
- Build larger external developer community
- Create more intuitive onboarding for non-technical users
- Enhance mobile app partnerships for broader reach
Key Sustainability Variables
1. Financial Viability, Cost-Effectiveness & Funding Sustainability
How financially viable (including all funding sources) is this solution over its lifecycle, and what regularly measurable Return-on-Investment towards major milestones (AAGs and EVC) does it offer in terms of demonstrated strategic value, efficiency and impact when compared to other relevant options?
2. Technical Adaptability, Interoperability & Extensibility
How well does the solution (regardless of size) adapt to emerging technologies (e.g. AI), integrate with existing systems, and iteratively update or extend functionality in order to reduce the frequency of complete overhauls?
3. User-Centric Adaptability & Responsiveness
How effectively does the solution continuously incorporate user feedback and remain responsive to changing needs and workflows, ensuring intuitive design and long-term cultural relevance across diverse global contexts?
4. Global Accessibility & Local Adoption
Can the solution be effectively used across all regions, and what barriers—technical (e.g. complex scripts, oral, sign), cultural (e.g. localization, customization, training), or infrastructural (e.g. scalable, offline, mobile)—might limit its accessibility (open-access) or local adoption (e.g. security risks), and does it demonstrate alignment with unmet user needs (market fit)?
5. Open Collaboration & Organizational Continuity
What is the likelihood and impact if the current development team or organization loses interest or shifts focus, and who (e.g. cross-organizational trust, capability, and knowledge-sharing) as well as what mechanisms (e.g. open-source, documentation, technical maturity, operational capacity) are in place to pick up the baton and maintain continuity?
6. Technology Standards, Reusability & Developer Support
To what extent are the parts of the solution reusable across similar solutions, and how actively does the organization pursue transparency and collaboration to enable reuse, reduce duplication across organizations, promote best practices, and advance common open standards (e.g. tech stack, frameworks, platforms) to collectively maximize the amount of work-not-done across solutions and devices?
7. Identifying with the Collective Impact Alliance
How closely does the team or organization align their identity, priorities, and efforts with the shared values and collective strategic milestones (e.g. AAGs and EVC) of the broader Bible translation movement, rather than becoming overly identified with specific solutions which may not directly advance these collective objectives?