Translation management systems are the primary means by which language service providers (LSPs) streamline and automate their project management processes, and many of these systems include an online interface.

There are online systems built by LSPs for their clients where multilingual content is managed and language resources are maintained. There are online vendor management portals where new jobs are offered to a pool of translators. There are translation project management portals for scheduling and tracking projects. And there are financial portals where bookkeeping for orders and invoices is managed.

As an LSP working with 400 other translation companies, we have seen a few of these. In fact, STP uses portals for over 170 clients. Some of these are great, but we have also worked with many that are unwieldy and convoluted.

This is why it took us a few years to develop our own supplier portal, STP Passport, which has just been launched. Our guiding light in the development of Passport was the vision of creating a supplier portal that is as intuitive and easy to use as possible.

Passport doesn鈥檛 have game-changing functionality, but what it does do, it does well. It allows our suppliers to update their profile and availability, accept and view translation projects they are offered, and invoice their work quickly and with minimal fuss. Crucially, it makes it easier for us to turn projects around quickly.

So we鈥檙e on the portal bandwagon now as well. It鈥檚 not difficult to see the attraction of automating workflows and using online systems from the buyer鈥檚 or the LSP鈥檚 point of view. Ease of buying language services is one of the key benefits that Multi-Language Vendors (MLVs) use as a differentiator when talking to their clients.

It is at the production end where the shiny portals and much-lauded automation start causing problems. We know how time-consuming it can be to process projects in multiple portals: the viewing, accepting, downloading, uploading, delivering and invoicing can be a complicated process. Automation often benefits the buyer and the first tier, but falls flat at the production end.

A solution that is meant to make a process simpler and faster cannot be called lean until it is lean throughout the entire production chain.

Portals are also touted as a way of cutting down on translation costs. Some MLVs build and promote translation marketplaces where everything below them in the supply chain is left for the quickest and cheapest to grab. Where should the development of portals and marketplaces end?

I don鈥檛 think we should stop when the buyer is satisfied, or at project management level. Let鈥檚 develop online systems that minimise the production steps at all levels. Let鈥檚 develop systems that can be connected to others via APIs. Systems that are simple and intuitive to use for the buyers, the LSPs and the translators.

But let鈥檚 stop short of the cheapest and quickest. Let鈥檚 use our online systems and portals to create lean translation management workflows, not to compromise on the quality of the translations we produce or the calibre of the people producing them.

The post Lean all the way appeared first on sa国际传媒.

In that time, machine translation (MT) has gone from:

鈥淣ot there鈥� to

鈥淵eah right, ha ha, never going to happen鈥� to

鈥淥h, this client鈥檚 doing it, but it鈥檚 pretty awful鈥� to

鈥淢aybe we should consider doing it?鈥� to

鈥淒oing it, and it鈥檚 not that bad鈥� to

鈥淎ctually, it鈥檚 just another productivity tool鈥�.

These days, we see a lot of MT at STP. Our excellent Technology team develop and maintain a host of MT engines for our internal use. We get MT output from clients and end-clients, and it ranges in quality and type from pure Google Translate to highly customised account-specific engines. What has been interesting is that companies have almost exclusively wanted a product which is full human quality.

If you ask me, the bottom line with MT is that when it鈥檚 used correctly, it allows us to translate more content faster, and within the same budget than before MT. And that鈥檚 great, it means that our target languages aren鈥檛 particularly threatened by English, as companies continue to see the value in producing content in their customers鈥� native tongues. For someone with a degree in Finnish translation, that鈥檚 a nice thought 鈥� there are only 5.5 million of us Finns after all!

What has become abundantly clear in the past few years of STP ramping up our use and development of MT is that our linguists鈥� MT post-editing skills are at the core of our ability to produce that full human quality. And that requires training.

This spring, we were certified to ISO 18587 on machine translation post-editing. This is a new ISO standard that has been developed to address the requirements for post-editing skills and training, rather than the technical development or implementation of MT engines. It鈥檚 not a particularly onerous standard to meet, provided that you are running a legitimate operation.

What the standard does do, though, is put the onus on the language service provider (LSP) to provide appropriate, robust training which ensures that the linguists working on MT output know how MT works, how post-editing is different to editing translation memory matches, how to give feedback and improve the engines efficiently, and how post-editing is best approached. And I think that鈥檚 the least we owe our translators.

And what being certified to the standard does is that it tells not only the outside world but also our clients and translators that we as a company know what we鈥檙e doing with MTPE. It tells them that our linguists are trained and know what they鈥檙e doing with MTPE, and that, essentially, it鈥檚 safe to trust your MT in our hands 鈥� what comes out the other end is another great STP translation.

I am sometimes a bit jealous of our translators who have made my old dream a reality, especially when it comes to figuring out how to use technology in the translation process. That said, I realised a long time ago that I would have at best been a mediocre translator, so I鈥檓 glad I found my calling on the business side of things. I certainly wouldn鈥檛 want to move to another industry, that鈥檚 for sure!

Raisa McNab is STP鈥檚 Learning and Development Manager and the ATC鈥檚 Lead on Standards. She holds an MA in Translation from the University of Turku in Finland.

This article first appeared in the June 2018 edition of STP’s Icebreaker newsletter.

Learn more about聽machine translation here.

The post Making the most of Machine Translation appeared first on sa国际传媒.

The General Data Protection Regulation聽鈥� can鈥檛 live with it, can鈥檛 live without it 鈥� especially if you work for 420 language service providers (LSPs) as clients who face the same conundrum.

It鈥檚 been on my mind a lot lately, as I’ve been drafting our own policies, but also because I’ve been involved in putting out LSP GDPR guidance through the Association of Translation Companies. Below, I present five ways to GDPR it 鈥� STP style.

To consent or not to consent?

That is the question, especially when it comes to direct marketing. The Information Commissioner鈥檚 Office in the UK (ICO) helpfully issued some clearer guidance last week. This came right about when everyone鈥檚 inboxes had already jammed up with emails asking for consent to send more emails. But if you haven鈥檛 yet sent your consent forms, might help.

At STP, we鈥檙e going for 鈥渓egitimate interest鈥�. Our direct marketing database only contains translation industry contacts who can reasonably be expected to have an interest in translation services. So you won鈥檛 get a consent form from us, but you will of course be able to opt out of receiving our wonderful newsletter or topical blog posts at any time.

We don鈥檛 even know what data we have!

Amongst all the hype, it鈥檚 difficult to remember that most of the content we translate doesn鈥檛 actually contain any personal data. That鈥檚 your lawnmower manuals, your mobile apps and your knowledge base translation 鈥� and many more.

One of the challenges at this point, of course, is that we don鈥檛 even know how much, or little, content we have that contains personal data. Or where it is, within the 60,000 individual projects we handle every year at STP.

Content profiling is definitely the way to go. Once we start tracking what comes in, we鈥檒l know whether it鈥檚 20% or 2% of all projects that contain personal data. Realistically, probably only a fraction of that will contain sensitive personal data, so having distinct content flows will allow us to safeguard those data without going overboard and deleting everything right after delivery.

Can we not keep any TM content?

Translation memories are a tricky one. If you take the ICO鈥檚 word for it, having personal data in a database is classed as retaining those data. Full stop. And it鈥檚 not OK to keep on doing that indefinitely.

That鈥檚 obviously going to be a disaster for the translation industry, so either we need a way of anonymising or redacting personal data from TM content, or we need to make sure our TM use is considered and the risks associated are weighed up.

Many LSPs seem to be taking the approach that restricting TM use to a single client is a good way of mitigating the risks to data subjects, and that鈥檚 what we鈥檙e doing as well. In addition, tool developers are also realising that it might actually be a pretty good commercial stunt to be the first one to give users a redacting tool. We know that and are on it, but do tell us if you know of anyone else!

Retention, retention, retention

How long you should retain files sent for translation is pretty much on a par with the age-old question of how long is a piece of string.

We鈥檝e said seven years as a standard and six months for sensitive content. Incoming client agreements have it all: delete immediately after delivery, two weeks after our invoice has been paid, once the contract expires, if there鈥檚 a 鈥渞ight to be forgotten鈥� request, and so on.

Does this even matter if the data in question are being stored safely and securely? Probably not. I鈥檇 like to think that we can come up with an agreement that doesn鈥檛 lead to every single LSP having dozens of different retention periods. This would add to admin and rates, which would adversely impact our clients.

Don鈥檛 panic

The ICO estimates that a significant number of UK businesses are not going to be GDPR ready by today (25 May). And the translation industry is not the primary target of the Regulation. In addition, there are only 60 staff for enforcement in the whole of the UK.

That鈥檚 not to say nothing should be done. However, in the absence of concrete case law to tell us exactly how to deal with TMs, file retention and supplier agreements, we鈥檙e addressing the issues and mitigating the risks as best we can.

If you are yet to do anything about GDPR, the excellent ATC LSP Guide to the GDPR is a good starting point, as is the .

The post 5 ways to GDPR it, STP style appeared first on sa国际传媒.