Collaboration: Pushing theQuality Process Upstream

Klaus Fleischmann,TAUS RT Vienna

Agenda / Goal

• The trouble with traditional quality control• Shifting the Quality Process Upstream

Quality checking

QA check tools• Purely formalistic

checks• Many "false

positives"

In-country review • Rarely professional copy-

writers• Rarely trained linguists• No time• Unpredictable interest• No handle

Confrontation or Collaboration

• No actionable feedback– "Translations are always bad!"– "Sounds like Google translate"– “Surely that was not a native speaker”

• Leads to defensive reactions, not solutions• Not a true quality perspective, just a snap

shot

Confrontation or Collaboration

Client

Reviewer

opinion

Translator

opinionLSP

opinion

Other Challenges of Review

• Review without context• File format issues• Linguistic issues• No process integration• Inserting corrections

Tim Martin

Review will not rescue a bad translation!• Review […] “alone is an imperfect art and can never ensure that an intrinsically

bad product will be rendered flawless. Nor indeed should it be seen merely as a form of corrective action.

• Its real strength and investment value is as a feedback tool that allows its results to be channeled back into the whole cycle of translation production in order to eliminate or reduce problems at source.”

• Tim MartinSenior staff member of the European Commission's Directorate-General for Translation

Common Sense Advisory

Review leads to delays and frustration:

• Client language reviews – often called in-country or third-party reviews – are notorious for causing delays and frustrations for all parties involved.

• Reviewers may alter the meaning of translations, introduce mistakes, fall into an editing black hole, or sit on review files for months.

May 29, 2015, “Rethinking Client Language Review”, CSA

Agenda / Goal

• The trouble with traditional quality control• Shifting the Quality Process Upstream

Defining quality

• ASTM* definition:– The degree to which the characteristics of a translation fulfill the

requirements of the agreed-upon specifications (3.1.45)• Alan Melby:

– A quality translation demonstrates accuracy and fluency required for the audience and purpose and complies with all other specifications negotiated between the requester and provider, taking into account both requester goals and end-user needs.

• * American Society for Testing and Materials

Defining quality

• So what we need are– Requirements– Specifications

• And to be able to– Calculate error scores– Define Pass/Fail-benchmarks– Track error scores over time

Requirements

• DQF and Content Profiles• Harmonized error categories• Combined with scoring, tracking

• Gives us business intelligence and objectivity• Allows us to be pro-active rather than re-active• Raises customer involvement

Smart Sampling

• Smart Sampling calculates relevant samples based on– Match rates– Context– Content– XML / formatting

Quality assessment by Reviewers

Quality tracking by PM

Objective Error Assessment

• Business intelligence • Objectivity• Pro-active instead of re-active• Early customer participation!

Collaboration beats confrontation

Shifting the TEP paradigm

• Moving the process upstream– BEFORE translation:

as much as possible– DURING translation:

routinely– AFTER translation:

as little as possible

Customer involvement

• BEFORE– Manage terminology – Develop style guides– Hold project kick-offs– Define requirements

(content profiling)

Customer involvement

• During translation– Actively resolve

queries– Define conflict resolution

scenarios– Direct contact between

reviewers and translators

Customer involvement

• After translation– Do not “review”, but

assess samples– Saves time, brings

objectivity– Track translation quality– Strategically attack

problematic fields

Redefining Review – Soft Facts

• Direct interaction between translators and reviewers!

• Feedback is not always a complaint – Valid for translators,

LSPs and clients!• Cost of unnecessary

corrections

• Conflict resolution process:– For real problems– For massive preferential

changes (Transcreation? A-B testing?)

• Responsible for final text?– Translators are language

specialists– Reviewers are content and

technical specialists

Advantages

• Objective quality tracking• "Documented" quality track record• Strategic instrument for assuring (!) quality

rather than snap shots and escalation• Direct feedback loop to translators

-> quality improvement

Bottom-line

• Collaboration beats confrontation• Strategic quality assurance beats quality

control• Customer becomes a partner

– Less work overall– More strategic work– Objective quality– Pro-actively identify improvement measures