Tools Sustainability Dashboard
Bible Well
Moderate (1.57)Simple tool for accessing translation resources
Bible Well serves effectively as a reference implementation and content delivery tool for Bible translation resources. It offers reasonable financial stability through its support from the ETEN Innovation Lab and has shown strong accessibility and value in field testing, particularly as a demonstration tool for Aquifer-based content.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Bible Well has reasonable financial stability through its support from the ETEN Innovation Lab. As a lightweight tool with focused scope, it maintains cost-effectiveness but may benefit from diversified funding sources for long-term sustainability.
Despite its narrow production scope, Bible Well has shown internal adaptability through use in multiple training and prototyping contexts. However, it lacks strong external collaboration mechanisms or broad partner-driven extensibility.
The tool maintains a simple and intuitive design that users appreciate. While it serves its reference implementation purpose well, there's limited evidence of systematic user feedback collection or iterative improvements based on user needs.
Globally accessible via browser with simple, intuitive design. Shows strong value in field testing and demonstration contexts. Works well as a lightweight tool for showcasing Aquifer-based content across different regions.
Limited external collaboration mechanisms currently in place. While the tool serves its purpose as a reference implementation, there's no clear stewardship model or pathway for community-driven development if Lab support changes.
Adaptable internally for multiple use cases and follows standard web technologies. Could benefit from more documentation for external developers and clearer APIs or integration points for broader reusability.
Aligns with broader goals as a demonstration and training tool, but its limited scope means it doesn't directly drive major collective milestones. Best viewed as a supporting tool in the ecosystem.
Key Strengths
- Simple and intuitive design
- Globally accessible via browser
- Adaptable internally for multiple use cases
- Effective as a reference implementation and demonstration tool
Key Recommendations
- Increase collaborative development and stewardship pathways
- Evaluate its long-term role beyond proof-of-concept
- Explore lightweight AI integration and extensibility through GitHub-based models
- Create clearer documentation for external developers
- Consider diversifying funding sources for long-term sustainability
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?