The efficiency was possible by using an online project management database that permitted more than 200 collaborators (translators, editors, and field testers) to communicate immediately.  The project was constructed in a workflow matrix with more than 400 overlapping parts. We also did not vote when the editors met face to face twice a year. We worked by consensus and deferred any difficult decision to the senior editor for a particular testament.

 

The online project management database was first constructed to handle the development of the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, which contains 8400 articles from more than 1000 contributors in 40 countries. (The NIDB was completed in four years). We have since used it on 7 other reference works that use a large number of contributors. The system is  relatively easy to understand as an online document management application with archiving, version control, scheduling, reports, and workflow.  If such a login system is not used, the project can quickly collapse into confusion by trying to manage by email.

 

The translation tool used by CEB editors is the BibleWorks software. We chose that platform because we could add the emerging Common English Bible translation into the Bibleworks translation database. This allowed for rapid searching and contributed significantly to a more consistent vocabulary across the translation.  It also helped identify traditional vocabulary in older translations that we no longer use in common English. We also had some ideas about generating a concordance from the BibleWorks software, and their programmer is working with us to develop a new cross-reference system for the reference edition of the Common English Bible as well as a "phrase concordance" that is required for a more functional translation. These tools will also become enhancements for future BibleWorks releases. 

 

Another technical tool, which was indispensable, is the Dale Chall readability software. Dale and Chall are two reading scholars who developed the most accurate reading measurement formula because it is based on a math computation as well as a comparison to vocabulary words lists that are sorted by grade level in standardized testing. Previously the Dale Chall method for measuring readability would work on samples of no more than 400 words. We approached a vendor to modify the program so that it could process a readability score and vocabulary assessment for entire books of the Bible.  Each document was measured on the first draft and last draft. We hit our target readability score of 7th grade reading level (in English). Bear in mind that readability is a measurement of the clarity of the translator. It does not reflect on the intelligence of the reader (as discussed here): http://www.commonenglishbible.com/Connect/Blog/ViewBlog/tabid/209/ArticleId/66/Reading-levels-explained.aspx

 

Finally, because our text was well tagged from the beginning in Microsoft Word documents (each text was tagged as soon as the first draft arrived), we were able to complete the XML tagging in the OSIS schema for of the whole Bible in about 4 weeks after we exported from Adobe InDesign typesetting.

 

Our use of technology was very practical. We used a software tool if it helped us get the job done efficiently. We did not try to chase impulsive or esoteric possibilities that computer tools sometimes inspire for translators.  It is possible to tag a Bible text too extensively, with expectations that some day a scholar could do interesting computerized data mining. (For example, one of the developers of the OSIS XML schema suggested we tag the east Jordan stories and west Jordan stories about Joseph in the text.)  That sort of data mining would be fun someday, but not when the real job is to complete a Bible translation containing 930,000 words.