Tools Sustainability Dashboard
Digital Bible Library (DBL)
Moderate (2.14)Central library for validated Scripture texts
DBL serves as a central repository for Scripture texts, audio, and metadata, providing standardized access to Bible content for publishers and digital distributors worldwide. It manages licensing and distribution of Scripture content across multiple platforms.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Strong institutional and ETEN backing provide solid foundation, but some uncertainty exists in funding diversity and potential vulnerability if a major funder withdraws. Overall financial position remains strong.
Excellent interoperability, well-documented for contributors and consumers, and technically ready for future extensibility. Serves as a model for technical excellence in the ecosystem.
Broad usability across user types and open to feedback, but usage is mostly via integrations rather than direct interaction. Scope is limited to Scripture content, which is appropriate for its mission.
API support for low-bandwidth/offline use and growing open content access. Hybrid open/closed licensing model still limits some access, but overall accessibility is strong.
Strong collaboration history, though lingering licensing stigma affects perception. Not open source, but technically well-documented. Leadership-change risks exist but are manageable.
Developer-friendly APIs and active participation in standards like Scripture Burrito. Public visibility of standards could improve, but technical implementation is solid.
Closely aligned with movement goals but somewhat centralized as "the" Scripture source, which may reduce diversity of repositories. Strong supporter of collective objectives overall.
Key Strengths
- Excellent technical infrastructure and documentation
- Strong institutional backing and financial stability
- Developer-friendly APIs enabling broad ecosystem integration
- Active participation in Scripture data standards
- Central role in Scripture distribution ecosystem
Key Recommendations
- Diversify funding sources to reduce dependency risks
- Improve public visibility of standards work
- Address lingering perceptions about licensing restrictions
- Consider more distributed repository models
- Strengthen continuity planning for leadership transitions
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?