Tools Sustainability Dashboard
translationCore
Middle (2.3)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. Currently in maintenance mode with limited active development.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
Strong cost-effectiveness with efficient resource utilization. While financially stable, the maintenance-only status raises questions about long-term funding commitment and future development investment.
Highly modular architecture allows for easy extension and adaptation. Strong technical foundation enables integration with emerging technologies and translation workflows.
Limited responsiveness due to maintenance-only status. While the tool continues to serve its checking purpose, minimal updates and reduced feedback loops limit adaptation to changing user needs.
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 community involvement, though activity has decreased with maintenance-only status. Documentation remains strong but opportunities for collaborative development are limited.
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
- Stable and reliable for existing use cases
- Excellent standards compliance and developer documentation
- Critical role in translation quality assurance
- Open-source with established user base
Key Recommendations
- Clarify long-term maintenance and development strategy
- Consider community-driven governance if official development ends
- Document architecture thoroughly to enable community contributions
- Explore lightweight mobile companion apps
- Create clear migration paths if tool reaches end-of-life
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?