Faster, better, cheaper
Some years ago (okay, decades) I was shopping for a new bicycle. I was describing to the bike shop owner what I wanted: light and fast, strong and sturdy, and of course, economical. He immediately shot back at me: "faster, better, cheaper: pick two." Sometime later it struck me how apt a description that was to our situation in Bible translation projects. We want quality translations, done quickly and efficiently, and at a reasonable cost. Faster, better, cheaper.
But in fact, just as with the bicycle, we must invariably pick two. We can have a quality translation done at a reasonable cost, but it will take a long time. Or we can speed things up dramatically while keeping the costs down, but we will have to sacrifice quality. And in theory, if the human resources are available, we can produce a quality translation in a relatively short time, but it will require paying more people quite a bit more money than we are accustomed to.
An example of a "fully funded" translation project might be paying full-time 8 translators (4 translating and 4 revising at any one time), with another team of 4-6 (again full-time) in charge of community checking and church relations. In addition, an ideal project would need a full-time tech support person, and another in charge of orthography. Of course these numbers would vary a bit based on the size of the community and the complexity of the situation (e.g. inter-confessional).
But the point is actually quite simple, if we are prepared to face it: faster, better, cheaper: pick two.
3 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
BT Conference participants may be interested in the paper to be presented there by one of our senior leaders: "Faster, Cheaper, Better meets Accurate, Clear and Natural".
Context is the King, 'better' from what perspective and whose perspective?? What are the current states? Why can't we have faster, better and cheaper all together in the future, if we are slow, bad and expensive now? Is the ultimate problem about the BT project is funding or the cause behind what needs to be funded? Wealth is not necessarily the answer, but the causes of the problem? The issue is not about faster, better, and cheaper, but the right ends with the right means/stewardship in the right context? In some cases, if the BT industry creates employment and livelihood, why do the employees want to see the vanishing of their sources of income? Would creating more need of BT, minimum speed, minimum quality, and high salary.
Another thought, we need to figure out the purpose of having a bicycle. Bicycle can serve very well with a good speed in certain context. I admire people working with solution like space X which can be faster, better/further; even though it is not cheaper.