Tools Sustainability Dashboard
Audio Visual Translation Tool (AVTT)
Moderate (1.71)Oral Bible translation with video feedback
A flexible and practical tool that serves a crucial role in Oral Bible Translation workflows. Features rapid development cycles and strong user responsiveness, particularly for audio-visual Bible translation projects.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Current funding relies heavily on ETEN support with limited direct investment from the parent organization. However, the tool operates with a very lean, scalable model and low costs, providing resilience advantages that help mitigate funding challenges.
Primarily a self-contained ecosystem with limited project-level interoperability. Integrates with select resources (FIA, DBL), and the team can build or adapt features rapidly when motivated. Broader integration across toolchains is still limited.
Strong, ongoing user engagement with rapid release cycles and direct field feedback. Development is tightly aligned with end-user needs and use cases, making it exceptionally responsive to user requirements.
Performs well in low-bandwidth contexts and moderately offline, though offline use requires careful handling. Not mobile-first, but companion "Engage" PWA supports community checking. Localization potential exists but not yet widely deployed.
Technically open source, but code is unavailable openly and external collaboration remain limited. Opportunities exist for increased partnership with similar tools in the ecosystem. Maintained by a single small team; developing a continuity plan would strengthen long-term sustainability.
Uses common audio and tech stack standards but offers no known APIs, developer documentation, or structured reusability pathways despite interest from potential partners.
Team aligns strongly with broader Bible translation goals. AVTT operates with significant autonomy within the larger organization, and the development team's high personal commitment ensures focus on collective impact.
Key Strengths
- Deep user engagement and exceptional responsiveness
- Lean, scalable operational model with low costs
- Effective integration of some external resources (FIA, DBL)
- High commitment from the development team
- Rapid feature development when motivated
Key Recommendations
- Urgently diversify funding sources to ensure long-term sustainability
- Expand interoperability with other translation tools and platforms
- Implement a real open-source collaboration model or continuity plan
- Increase mobile-first capabilities and robust offline functionality
- Create developer documentation and APIs for broader ecosystem integration
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?