Tools Sustainability Dashboard
Aquifer
Needs Attention (1.29)Training resources for Bible translators
Aquifer provides capacity building resources and training materials for Bible translation. It offers a public API for external integrations and has adopted modern technologies including LLM integration, though it faces challenges with external collaboration and offline accessibility.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Aquifer has a single funding source (ETEN via Innovation Lab), which provides current stability but introduces high dependency risk. Strong internal budget management keeps costs in check. Long-term sustainability relies entirely on continued ETEN support, with no alternative funding strategies yet identified.
Aquifer has adopted modern technologies (LLM integration) and offers a public API for external integrations. Current architecture limits extensibility—future enhancements would require major redesigns. Some positive examples of interoperability (Bible Well) exist, but broader integration is limited.
Aquifer uses extensive user feedback mechanisms and telemetry, with strong internal improvements. However, external users have reported challenges in having their feedback effectively incorporated into the development process. Improving cultural responsiveness and external user satisfaction, particularly for developers, remains an opportunity area.
The API is technically accessible worldwide but depends on internet connectivity, limiting use in offline or low-bandwidth contexts. Multilingual support is in place for major strategic languages. The content itself is highly aligned with Bible translation needs, but technical limitations hinder universal adoption.
The transition from the original organization exposed significant continuity risks—no pre-existing backup or handoff plan existed. The Innovation Lab has stepped in to maintain essential operations. Limited open-source availability and opportunities for expanded collaboration with external developers present areas for improving resilience.
Aquifer's API enables good external reuse, though internal systems are not reusable. Development practices are solid within its C# tech stack but diverge from common stacks used by others in the community. No active participation in open-platform initiatives, though REST API standards are followed.
Aquifer is strongly aligned with collective Bible translation goals (AAGs, EVC) at the mission level. Some external partners have expressed interest in broader collaboration opportunities beyond the current implementation. While it helped deliver translations of partner resources, those partners have had difficulty using them. Teams requiring offline-friendly solutions have needed to explore alternative approaches.
Key Strengths
- Strong alignment with strategic translation goals
- Good API reusability and integration potential
- Robust internal documentation and cost management
- Multilingual support for major strategic languages
Key Recommendations
- Explore broader funding models for sustainability
- Develop an extensibility roadmap for future-proofing
- Improve external user engagement—focus on respectful, collaborative approaches
- Plan for offline-friendly solutions or partnerships
- Enhance open-source strategy and developer collaboration
- Create contingency plans for organizational continuity
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?