Tools Sustainability Dashboard
translationCore
Strong (2.57)Quality checking for translation accuracy
A modular Bible translation checking tool that provides quality assurance through various checking modules. Built as a desktop application with a focus on accuracy and consistency checking for Bible translations.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Strong financial position with multiple funding sources and efficient resource utilization. Demonstrates high cost-effectiveness in delivering translation quality assurance capabilities.
Highly modular architecture allows for easy extension and adaptation. Strong technical foundation enables integration with emerging technologies and translation workflows.
Moderate responsiveness to user feedback. While the tool serves its checking purpose well, user interface and experience improvements could enhance adoption.
Good global reach with offline capabilities. Desktop-only nature may limit accessibility in mobile-first contexts, but serves its target audience of checkers and consultants well.
Open-source with active community involvement. Strong documentation and collaborative development practices ensure continuity beyond the original team.
Excellent adherence to standards with highly reusable components. Strong developer documentation and modular design encourage external contributions and extensions.
Strongly aligned with collective Bible translation goals. Actively contributes to quality and accuracy objectives across the translation movement.
Key Strengths
- Highly modular and extensible architecture
- Strong financial sustainability with diverse funding
- Excellent standards compliance and developer support
- Critical role in translation quality assurance
- Open-source with active community
Key Recommendations
- Improve user interface for better accessibility
- Consider mobile or web-based versions for broader reach
- Enhance user feedback mechanisms
- Expand checking modules for emerging translation methodologies
- Strengthen onboarding resources for new users
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?