Localization

Takeaway
Column
The translation leverage model
For many years now we have heard of the tripod model for translation
services, with the three legs representing price, quality and turnaround
time. Conventional wisdom has long argued that these factors were interdependent.
For example, you could reduce the price, but that would affect
the quality or the speed.
However, the three-legged model
is due for a major revision. The “leverage”
model of service is now the
dominant paradigm in the translation
industry, creating less interdependence
of price, quality and speed.
What do I mean by “leverage”? I mean
the ability to use linguists, processes
and technology to deliver improvement
in quality, consistency and speed
as usage increases over time.
First, let’s consider a more traditional
translation workflow.
1. Client emails a document to the
language service provider (LSP) and
requests a quote.
2. A project manager (PM)
receives the document, does a word
count, calculates a cost, creates a
quote document and returns that to
the client.
3. The client approves the quote.
4. The PM searches for available
translators, negotiates a price and
then assigns the project.
5. The translator receives the document,
translates it and returns it.
6. The PM sends the file to another
translator for quality assurance (QA).
7. After QA, translation goes back
to the PM.
8. The PM does a final check
including checking layout, and then
returns the document to the client.
Each step in this process requires
the manual work of either a PM
or translator, and there is no use of
technology to create leverage. Furthermore,
since different translators
are used for each new project, their
brand-specific linguistic knowledge
is inefficient.
However, if you were to utilize
a system whereby the client simply
uploaded a document, then received
an automated word count and quote,
there would be a substantial savings of
time and cost. Taking it a step further, if
the file was automatically run through
the client’s translation memory (TM)
to produce a weighted word count
quote, and then forwarded to a predetermined
pool of translators who were
all familiar with the client’s preferred
style and terminology, you’d have a
more efficient translation process.
This probably seems like a commonsense
use of commonplace technology
and processes to most readers. However,
it’s surprising how many companies
still don’t use processes like this.
Let’s look at a more complicated
example. In this case, the client
is translating web content into 15
languages on a daily basis and uses a
content management system (CMS)
to organize the company’s content.
The LSP employs a fairly sophisticated
translation management system
(TMS) to automate much of the work.
1. Client uploads file package to
the vendor’s TMS.
2. The file is automatically parsed
into individual files for each language
and each file is run through the
respective TM for that language.
Mark Shriner has held senior
executive positions in the
localization industry.
3. The client automatically receives
a quote and the files are automatically
forwarded to a preset pool of
translators who all have access to the
client’s TM, glossary and style guide.
4. After the translation is complete,
the file is automatically forwarded
to a human QA checker, and then
through an automated QA process.
5. The file is then automatically
returned to the client’s CMS, where
end content is automatically created
and sent for a final internal review.
In this example, the automated
processing saves time and money,
and reduces opportunities for errors.
In fact, the more work that is done,
the larger the TM becomes, and the
greater the leverage. By using the same
pool of linguists who become increasingly
familiar with the client’s content,
the linguistic quality and turn-aroundtime
will also continually improve.
In the old three-legged paradigm,
a client might be at risk any time
someone offered them a reduced
word rate. Under the leverage model,
clients will see increasingly better
quality and pricing the longer they
work with a given LSP. This makes
the relationship between the two
parties “stickier." In fact, given the
current transparency in the market
for word rates and salaries, it’s almost
impossible for any one company to
continually outperform the competition
under the three-leg model. [M]
70 April/May 2016