Tools Sustainability Dashboard
The Bible Translator's Assistant (TBTA)
Lower (1.1)Rules-based platform generating target-language resources
TBTA is a linguistically motivated, rules-based tool that generates Scripture translation resources directly in minority languages without requiring existing Scripture. It supports low-resource languages at the very start of translation projects and can work as a standalone solution or alongside tools such as Scripture Forge and FLExTrans.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
TBTA currently relies heavily on ETEN funding, which provides stability but creates a single-source vulnerability. The tool's setup costs are higher than some alternatives, since new languages require complex grammar rule-building by trained linguists. However, once developed, the grammars can serve multiple related languages, improving long-term efficiency. Future diversification of funding streams will be key to resilience.
TBTA is being updated to a modern web-based platform compatible with platform.bible, which is a positive step. However, its rule-based architecture lags behind more adaptive machine learning and LLM approaches that are becoming standard. This limits extensibility and interoperability compared to newer tools. Progress is being made, but TBTA remains somewhat behind the curve in technical adaptability.
TBTA is primarily designed for specialists and linguists, not for everyday translators or community members. It is powerful but not intuitive or user-friendly for broader audiences. Feedback loops exist but are limited to a smaller, specialized group rather than broad user communities. This restricts responsiveness to diverse global contexts.
While TBTA has been piloted in Africa and Asia with promising results, several barriers limit global adoption:
The TBTA team collaborates openly with engaged partners, but core expertise is concentrated in a small group of specialists. This creates continuity risks if key individuals step away. The tool is not open-source, and documentation for external adoption is limited. While partnerships exist, succession planning and wider collaboration mechanisms are underdeveloped.
TBTA is largely built on a proprietary framework with limited reuse potential for outside developers. It does not emphasize open standards, modularity, or developer support. The "black box" approach restricts transparency and makes it harder for other organizations to adapt or extend the tool.
The TBTA team demonstrates clear intent to align with ETEN's All Access Goals and the broader Collective Impact Alliance. However, its long mapping process (often a year or more) is misaligned with the urgent timelines of the movement, which emphasizes rapid accessibility. While intent is strong, execution timelines weaken perceived alignment.
Key Strengths
- Provides a unique solution for low-resource languages without existing Scripture
- Reduces consultant workload by up to 50%, improving efficiency in projects
- Demonstrated strong complementarity with other tools like Scripture Forge
Key Recommendations
- Diversify funding sources to reduce reliance on ETEN and ensure long-term sustainability
- Accelerate technical modernization, exploring AI/LLM integration and stronger interoperability with other translation ecosystems
- Broaden accessibility and collaboration, by simplifying workflows, expanding documentation, and creating continuity plans for future stewardship
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?