Tools Sustainability Dashboard
OBT Helper
Middle (2.3)AI assistants for oral Bible translation
A set of GPT-powered assistants designed to support Oral Bible Translation practitioners, especially in oral storying contexts. Provides functions like oral storytelling, back translation analysis, picture generation, and video recommendations. Currently housed in ChatGPT but moving toward WhatsApp integration and custom app deployment for wider access.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
While infrastructure costs are minimal, the $20/month per user ChatGPT Plus requirement creates scalability concerns. At 100 users, this equals $24,000/year in subscription costs. Interest from partners like the OBT Affinity Table and ETEN Innovation Lab is promising, but lacks the diversified funding and organizational backing seen in tools scoring 5/5. The ROI remains strong for small deployments, but cost-effectiveness decreases with scale.
While currently split into six GPTs, OBT Helper is evolving into a more integrated framework. The prompts have already been reused across AI platforms and models and are connected into Faith Bridge. Main limitation: version management of system prompts.
Hundreds of users are providing feedback, with Marcia iteratively refining prompts based on real-world use. Field adoption is strong, and the planned WhatsApp interface will improve accessibility. However, as a single-person operation without formal development cycles or structured processes, it lacks the rapid release cycles and dedicated development teams of tools scoring 5/5. Response times and feature development depend entirely on one individual's availability.
Designed for oral cultures and non-literate users with exceptional ease of use. WhatsApp deployment will remove technical barriers - users need only a basic smartphone. However, the continued requirement for internet connectivity prevents this from achieving the highest accessibility score. Tools that work fully offline in remote contexts deserve the 5/5 rating. Once offline capability is achieved, this could become the most accessible tool in the ecosystem.
Replication is easy, and any organization could adapt the system. Collaboration is already happening (OBT Affinity Table, Innovation Lab, SIL Faith Bridge). Greater documentation and shared repositories would strengthen continuity further.
Prompts have already been reused (YWAM, FaithBridge). Documentation is still limited, but openness and Marcia's active support make sharing possible. A bit more structure (e.g., GitHub repo, lightweight developer support) would amplify reusability.
OBT Helper empowers emerging OBT methodologies and aligns with ETEN's AAGs/EVC goals by demonstrating grassroots AI innovation. However, as a single-person project without formal organizational partnerships or participation in alliance-wide initiatives, it lacks the structural integration and movement-wide coordination of tools scoring 5/5. Broader organizational representation and formal alliance participation would strengthen its collective impact position.
Key Strengths
- Uniquely designed for oral cultures and non-literate users
- Low-cost model with strong ROI for small deployments
- Strong field-level adoption and active feedback loops
- Reusable, portable prompts adaptable to multiple AI systems
- Pioneering grassroots innovation in AI for Bible translation
Key Recommendations
- Urgently overcome ChatGPT Plus subscription barrier through WhatsApp and open APIs
- Develop sustainable funding model that addresses per-user costs at scale
- Strengthen version management and documentation for long-term continuity
- Create lightweight developer support structure (GitHub + community space)
- Expand governance model beyond single-person dependency
- Formalize development processes and release cycles
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?