Tools Sustainability Dashboard
Render
Moderate (1.86)Oral-first Bible translation workflow tool
Oral Bible Translation software guiding oral communicators to produce oral Scripture for their own language group. Designed specifically for oral-first translation teams with a focus on audio Scripture production.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Strong, diversified funding base with long-term stability and a proven history. Better financial position than any other team/tool known in the ecosystem, ensuring long-term viability.
Adaptation is very slow, interoperability and extensibility are limited. While quality is high when features are delivered, change is rare and difficult, limiting ability to keep pace with technological advances.
Highly fine-tuned to users with deep understanding of oral translation workflows. However, slow response time (often a year for new features) prevents a perfect score despite strong user focus.
Strong offline-ish performance on laptops in low-connectivity areas. However, no mobile support and incomplete offline capability slightly limit accessibility in some contexts.
Low risk of team/funding loss with open-source fallback available. Some active collaborations (e.g., APM, FIA integration) demonstrate willingness to work with partners, though no formal continuity plan exists.
APIs are reusable and some interoperability exists, but the app itself isn't highly reusable. Such integrations have been infrequent, limiting broader ecosystem impact.
Strong alignment with the wider Bible translation movement and high activity as a downstream partner. AAGs aren't central to the approach but overall mission alignment is strong.
Key Strengths
- Rock-solid funding stability and proven long-term sustainability
- Deep alignment with Bible translation movement
- Highly user-focused workflow design for oral-first translation teams
- Good offline performance in low-resource settings
- Strong organizational backing from FCBH
Key Recommendations
- Increase technical adaptability and speed of updates
- Expand interoperability with other translation tools and systems
- Enhance mobile and full offline capabilities
- Build out continuity planning and succession documentation
- Increase reusability of components across the ecosystem
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?