As soon as the quality of the output is brought into question, though, the focus turns to the input. Was the service provider qualified? Were they properly vetted? What processes were applied? How did they demonstrate their expertise? What tools and resources did they use? Suddenly, everyone is keen to understand the correlation between the quality of what goes in and the quality of what comes out.

I am a member of the Professional Development Committee (pictured below) of the , a UK-based professional membership association for practising translators, interpreters and language services businesses.

For four years, I have worked with my volunteer peers to support the institute鈥檚 members in maintaining the highest possible standards within their profession. The committee contributes to this by devising an annual programme of training events and webinars, and by facilitating the record-keeping of members鈥� participation in these activities. In other words, it caters for continuing professional development (CPD) in the translation industry.

What is CPD?

It is hard to imagine that anyone in the modern workplace would still consider full-time education the sole training ground that prepares us for our careers.

However significant that initial learning period may be, it doesn鈥檛 take us all the way to specialisation. Nor does it equip us to cope with the fact that we end up changing careers three to four times over the course of our lives. And even if we don鈥檛, the pace of change now makes most skills and technical knowledge in the workplace obsolete within five to ten years.

Sometimes continuing professional development is mandated by professional organisations or required by codes of ethics 鈥� this is the case in regulated fields such as medicine, engineering and law. But at its core, it is the personal responsibility of professionals to keep their knowledge and skills current so that they can deliver the high quality of service that meets the clients鈥� expectations and the requirements of their profession.

CPD activities can range from formal educational activities such as instructor-led training courses, workshops or seminars to more informal approaches such as work-based learning or mentoring. CPD can also include self-study such as e-learning courses and structured reading. It can be provided by commercial training companies, independent coaches and professional associations, or internally by colleagues and mentors.

CPD in the translation industry

What does continuing professional development look like in the global language industry? It should enable language professionals to keep up to date with new working methods and tools, and to specialise, diversify and stay abreast of the latest developments in their field of expertise.

The , a partnership project between the European Commission and master鈥檚 level translation programmes at European higher education institutions, published their first translation competence framework in 2009. This for translator training defines fives areas of competence which can also be applied to translators鈥� life-long learning:

• Language and culture 鈥� This encompasses all the general or language-specific linguistic, sociolinguistic, cultural and transcultural skills that constitute the basis for advanced translation competence.

• Translation 鈥� This refers to the transfer of meaning between two languages. It includes the analysis of the source document, implementation of instructions, style guides and conventions, assessment of what is fit for purpose, and justification of solutions and choices.

• Technology 鈥� This consists of the skills required to use translation technology in the translation process, but also the use of any workflow management software, search engines, corpus-based tools and other standard office software.

• Personal and interpersonal 鈥� This includes all the 鈥渟oft skills鈥� from time and stress management to teamwork, from the use of virtual communication methods to ergonomics, and from self-assessment to collaborative learning.

• Service provision 鈥� This covers the skills related to the provision of language services in a professional context 鈥� from client awareness and negotiation through to project management, quality assurance and invoicing.

I would add to these a sixth competence: the domain expertise translation professionals need in order to understand the subject matter of the text they work with. In my experience, this is the competence clients are most interested in.

According to the ITI鈥檚 records, most of their members partake in training that focuses on language development and maintenance, translation skills or subject-specific knowledge. However, many are also seeking high-quality, applicable and quick training sessions on business and technical skills.

CPD opportunities for translators and translation project managers

The CPD training currently available for language industry professionals varies in quality and relevance.

Language technology developers organise training for their own products. Membership associations try to provide opportunities, but the content is ad hoc and difficult for them to curate when the contributors are volunteers who mainly share their personal experience. Many translation companies offer webinars, usually to their own freelancer pool, and often in connection with training their own in-house linguists.

All these CPD offerings lack external moderation and evaluation. For domain-specific expertise, translators have to seek training and learning within the industry verticals they work with.

For the members of the translation industry, continuing professional development may therefore call for persistence and even creativity, but above all it requires a critical approach, a bit of research and simple planning ahead.

Write a CPD plan

CPD is most useful when it is planned. List the main areas of your work, articulate your long-term aspirations, identify your goals for the next few years, define what you need to learn in order to achieve your goals and determine which specific activities will meet your needs. Consider your immediate career prospects and think beyond them to the limits of your ambition and ability.

Write a . List the things you do well, where you need to improve, what new opportunities there are for you and what challenges you must face. And recognise where CPD fits in with other demands on your time.

Keep a CPD record

Once you engage in continuing professional development, keep a record of your efforts. CPD records must be managed in a format that can be easily extracted for presentation. The extracts should show when you did the training (date), how long you spent on it (hours), what exactly you did (description) and what you learned that you can apply to your work (learning outcomes).

The international translation services standard ISO 17100 paves the way for a systematic approach to recording CPD. It asks certified language service providers (LSPs) for assurance that everyone involved in their translation production process (project managers as well as freelance and in-house translators) undertakes CPD every year. It does not state how many hours of development are required 鈥� that is for each LSP to determine for their own staff and partners.

Ask for CPD evidence

Clients and employers should ask for translation professionals鈥� CPD records at least as often as they ask to see their CVs.

Translators are aware of their need for continuing professional development, and many are already structuring their CPD activities and keeping records. What is needed now is for clients to take an interest.

Checking on translation providers鈥� CPD efforts does not feature in the translation service requests for proposal, as far as I know. Nor is it part of translation companies鈥� vetting process for their freelance translators, let alone the hiring process for in-house linguists or translation project managers.

But it should be. The CV of a good, experienced freelance translator may not have changed much in the past ten years, but their CPD record for the past three years will speak volumes for their professional pride, how engaged they are with the industry and how proactive they would be as a collaboration partner.

So in the interest of the best possible output, let鈥檚 take notice of the translators’ input聽鈥� and support them in their efforts.

The post Director鈥檚 Cut, take 19: What goes in, comes out appeared first on sa国际传媒.

It has long been recognised that only a small fraction of the cost of localisation consists of payments to individual freelance translators, but before rushing to 鈥渃ut out the middlemen鈥�, we need to consider the value that LSPs can add.聽 It is also incumbent on wise buyers to acknowledge the hidden costs of going directly to the source. Let鈥檚 look at a few typical examples.

Buying translation services

Many larger LSPs (often referred to as Multi-Language Vendors or MLVs) and some end buyers have attempted to reduce costs by developing a global network of freelance translators and leveraging technology to manage individual translation tasks. With the ubiquity of capable and reliable cloud-based technology solutions, this approach dangles the carrot of vastly reduced costs and potentially streamlined delivery processes.

The actual 鈥減er word鈥� price compares favourably to that charged by smaller regional or single language agencies (RLVs/SLVs), and there is a degree of control that may also be attractive.聽 If the demand for a given language pair is closely matched with the 鈥渟upply鈥� (in terms of available freelancers in the pool), task assignments to individual translators, whose availability is known, can ensure a reassuring degree of consistency. And with some planning, the actual assignments can be automated.

Complications for LSPs buying translations

First of all, the vendor management structure necessary to recruit and administer a worldwide network of freelance translators with varying skill levels, subject area expertise, availability, translation tool access/familiarity, etc. is significant. For larger MLVs there may be enough aggregate demand to cover these costs, but for most end buyers (and many MLVs), this will not be the case.

More to the point, focusing scarce enterprise resources on the development and optimisation of vendor management processes may not be the best use of that collective brain power. There is a reason why companies outsource essential but non-differentiating services outside their core competency.

Other hidden costs (even for MLVs)

Localisation demand is spread over multiple languages, and the obvious fact that translators typically focus on only one or two language pairs complicates the vendor management process. For MLVs, that demand also spans a number of subject areas or domains.

The larger and more diverse this network of freelancers becomes, the more distant and detached the decision making becomes from the actual outcome 鈥� translated material that meets the business purpose for which it was intended. And unlike most commercial transactions, a buyer of translation is uniquely unqualified to judge the value of the acquisition.

This means that where translation quality is critical, additional quality assurance steps must be added to the vendor management processes, either in parallel or 鈥渁t the end鈥�, neither of which are particularly cost-effective. One way or another, this involves a second (possibly separate) 鈥渟upply chain鈥�.

Translator availability

Before leaving this section, though, we should also touch on an assumption mentioned above 鈥� availability.聽 Given that translators are typically freelancers, they are 鈥渇ree鈥� to accept work from multiple buyers. This means that along with the other vendor management activities, it is important to avoid an 鈥渙versupply鈥� of a given language pair or subject domain.

If there is not enough steady work to keep your translators busy, you may find that they are not available when you need them. This is yet another complexity that contributes to the hidden costs.

Power of partnership

So let鈥檚 look at a partnership model instead. What if we replaced a complex organisation of vendor managers and individual freelancers with a smaller network of RLV/SLV partners?

From an MLV’s perspective, this might initially seem like a high cost option. And in traditional approaches where every 鈥渓ayer鈥� in the supply chain includes its own sales and management overhead, its own 鈥減roject management鈥� activities and its own often-redundant file preparation and file management activities, there is certainly some justification for this view. Add to that the extra delay for multiple hand-offs, and it is tempting to go back to the freelance solution. But to do that is to overlook the substantial value an RLV/SLV partner can bring.

What are we missing?

Plenty. First of all, most SLVs are physically located in the 鈥渢arget language鈥� area. This means not only greater access to translation resources, but also a much more personal and culturally consistent approach to recruiting and managing those resources. It also means that the project or vendor management staff (unlike the translation buyer) is in a position to gauge translation quality.

As a company, the SLV can put in place both quality control and quality assurance processes that operate close to the 鈥減roduction line鈥�, eliminating costly delays as well as quality 鈥渄efects鈥�. This facilitates training and feedback to translators and allows SLVs to selectively favour those translators who are most responsive and productive after quality concerns are factored in.

More overlooked value

Additionally, an SLV can aggregate demand from a number of MLV or end buyer partners, allocating work in a manner that avoids the 鈥渇east or famine鈥� approach that their customers might individually experience on their own.

Similarly, starting with language expertise itself, an SLV can develop 鈥渃ore competencies鈥� around language technologies, language asset management, translator training, etc. that provide often overlooked value to MLV or end buyer customers. And the power of partnership encourages both sides to invest in deep integration at the process and technology level that can reduce end-to-end costs without jeopardising value.

What could go wrong with this approach? There are certainly pitfalls to be avoided, but investing in partnerships built around mutual trust and complementary core competencies is likely to generate compound 鈥渄ividends鈥� over time.

But are those the only options?

For end buyers, there are various 鈥渕ix and match鈥� approaches that might be tried. One of the most obvious is acknowledging the core competencies that an MLV brings. There is a lot more to localisation than translation itself, and much of the file management and preparation effort can be handled more cost-effectively in one step, even (or especially) when the end goal is localisation into multiple languages.

Source language terminology management and the leveraging of target language assets (translation memory, customized machine translation engines, etc.) are also often among MLV core competencies (even if some of the language-specific aspects are outsourced to an SLV).

And the same argument for investing in a long-term partnership with a trusted vendor applies here as well.聽 Larger MLVs have the scale and capabilities to automate the interaction between themselves and both the end buyers and (if applicable) their own SLV partners, which is yet another often overlooked source of value.

Your mileage may vary

The standard auto-maker disclaimer applies here as well. Individual situations call for individual solutions, though the basic principle of focusing on core competencies applies.

Some end buyers or MLVs may have a large and consistent demand for 鈥渂udget鈥� translation that can best be met through a combination of investment in technology infrastructure and a network of freelancers.

For some heavily regulated industries (financial services or investment management firms, for instance), the combination of very high volume 鈥渂oilerplate鈥� necessary for regulatory compliance with a much lower volume of consumer-facing marketing material may call for a hybrid strategy.

Both end buyers and MLVs may want to consider the file management and file preparation activities as an opportunity for outsourcing to a trusted partner, and SLV/RLVs may want to develop such a service as an additional core competency. Like languages themselves, the variations are quite diverse.

How to choose?

There are a few key questions to ask that may help push you in one direction or another.

Is there a high and consistent volume in one or more language pairs?

If so, the vendor management infrastructure associated with your own network of freelancers may be justified. Even in that case, though, an SLV/RLV partner who can provide you with a dedicated team of translators assigned to this work may be preferable.

Don鈥檛 overlook the value of having a partner whose core competency is in translation management. And if, on the other hand, the demand is inconsistent or periodic, you will probably want to outsource that problem to a vendor that can aggregate demand from several sources.

Is there a high 鈥渃ost鈥� associated with translation 鈥渄efects鈥�?

Perhaps a better way of expressing this might be to ask whether the linguistic quality and character of the translation has intrinsic value beyond mere accuracy. In either case, finding an SLV partner who can understand and deliver translations according to your agreed upon standards should be considered.

Does your organisation already need a global human resources function to support its core business?

If not, the additional cost and complexity of managing a global network of freelancers should probably be avoided.

Does your organisation already invest heavily in content management initiatives such as terminology management and content style guides?

If not, there is a significant opportunity for you to generate added value by partnering with an LSP that has developed core competencies in this area.

Do you need help sorting though these options in more detail?

Most LSPs are happy to assist you (as a customer or as a prospect) in finding the best match for your situation. The days of simply quoting a per-word rate without considering the business needs are gone (along with most of the vendors who operated that way).

Having an open discussion with your LSP can be the first step toward building that mutually beneficial partnership.

鈥淎nything I don鈥檛 understand is easy鈥�

鈥� Scott Adams in Dilbert

Whatever you do, avoid the trap that Dilbert鈥檚 manager falls into as he utters these words. The hidden costs of developing and maintaining a network of competent freelancers dwarfs the 鈥減er-word鈥� savings. And when you overlook and unwittingly discount the many sources of value that a trusted RLV/SLV partner can provide, you risk becoming part of the stereotype parodied by this comment.

About the author

Bob Donaldson is the founder and Principal at Carson Strategy Group, which serves both buyers and sellers of translation services in the areas of business and technology strategy. He served in the US Army as a Russian linguist, and returned to the localization space in 2007 after 20 years in software development and engineering management.

While at McElroy Translation Company, he led a technology initiative that overhauled the vendor management process resulting in significant cost reductions and reduced turnaround times. He also led their 鈥淕local鈥� initiative, which leveraged the power of partnerships to build a 鈥済lobally local鈥� network of service providers.

At Carson Strategy Group he has helped global companies streamline their localisation outsourcing process and LSPs implement technology and partnership strategies to improve quality and reduce costs.

The post Hidden costs and overlooked value in vendor management appeared first on sa国际传媒.

Larger language service companies keep filling gaps in their expanding service portfolios by acquiring small specialists. Smaller firms sell when it鈥檚 time for the owners to retire, or when the challenge of constantly upping the game becomes too draining. New entrants mushroom in the climate that accommodates quick cash-ins after a few years of aggressive growth.

It is now five years since I was last involved in an acquisition. It was my fourth, and I was on the buying side. I belong to the growing number of translation professionals who have been in this business for more than 20 years and have many merger and acquisition tales to tell. People like me are not the owners and brokers who sit at the negotiation table, yet in our own way, we have become M&A experts. We gather the data for the due diligence, tackle the delicate internal communications, plan the operational integration and implement change on the shop floor. We are a well of wisdom when it comes to deciding how change management should – and should not – be carried out.

The company I work for functions as a production partner within the language industry. Our client base is made up of 400 other translation companies. Most mergers and acquisitions in the market impact on us one way or the other. For instance, if both of the merging companies are our clients, we face an inevitable change in preferred technology, discount models and project management workflows somewhere down the line. The same is likely to happen if one of our clients is bought by an LSC that has not used STP鈥檚 services before, plus we have the added challenge of convincing the new owners of our unique value as a production partner. When a merger happens between two LSCs who don鈥檛 yet know STP, it鈥檚 an opportunity for us to introduce ourselves, as it鈥檚 typically the larger language service companies who can fully deploy the benefits of working with a supplier like us.

Consolidation is a positive trend 鈥� it is a process that combines a number of variants into a more effective and cohesive whole. But when we eulogise about the language industry consolidating, is it really a creation of a stronger and more solid entity that we are seeing?

The industry is certainly consolidating in the sense that the revenue from the content owner clients is concentrating in the hands of fewer and bigger players.聽 But the language industry consists of more than the MLVs that sell services and solutions to the end-clients. Beneath that surface level, in the deep layers of the supply chain where the work is manipulated with technology and outsourced for linguistic production, the tell-tale signs of strength, solidity, efficiency and coherence are not quite so much in evidence. The subcontracted work remains as fragmented as ever, best practices are universally questioned, and for the bottom link of the chain who actually carries out the production work, the setup and admin of each new assignment takes longer than it did five years ago.

The translation companies who get to talk to today鈥檚 content owners say that the translation buyers are now more interested in the value of the service than the basic unit price per word. They are asking for increased transparency in the supply chain, they want to track who their resources are, how they are used, and what the decisions down the chain were based on. This shines a welcome spotlight onto the grass root levels of our business.

STP has adhered to its market position and business model for almost twenty years, but where ten years ago we were working in five CAT tools, the industry fragmentation has left us in a situation where we now have 20 in active use. Licences are costly, and production teams (translators, project managers and language technology experts) can only be power users of a limited number of different translation environments. Furthermore, we deal with 117 different login scenarios to various client portals and proprietary platforms for daily file transfers and invoicing. In addition, we have wildly varying pricing models and countless client-specific LQA processes, all dictated to us, by necessity, by our translation company clients, or their clients. Having to work like this is a major hindrance for a supply chain company that strives to build a smooth, streamlined service.

I love the fact that STP collaborates with a large number of translation company clients. But when it comes to the efficiency and effectiveness of our internal operations, I wish that the consolidation in the language industry led to a simplified production environment: STP could still produce Nordic and English translations for all reputable language service companies in the world, but these companies would only work with two sophisticated translator-friendly CAT tools, use a couple of translation management systems with good API connectivity, and apply one uniform rate discount matrix.

True consolidation in the language industry should impact the entire supply chain, but it does not simply mean cutting out the middlemen 鈥� whoever they are deemed to be 鈥� and creating one open marketplace where random sole traders bid for individual jobs. Solutions like that, made in the name of transparency, are proposed by people who have limited expertise in seamless, continuous, high-quality translation production.

The speed of business depends on trust. If the trust is strong, business between two partners can grow quickly and smoothly. On the day when consolidation and transparency are genuinely extended to all the levels of our industry, STP will be able to focus internal process development much more efficiently, and offer a lean translation production machine with a lot of transparency and best practices to those clients who value it.

The post Director鈥檚 Cut, take 12: And then there were fewer appeared first on sa国际传媒.