Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program Alex Lik (Biosense Webster, Ltd., Israel), David Sommer (Net-Translators)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program Alex Lik (Biosense Webster, Ltd., Israel), David Sommer (Net-Translators)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program Alex Lik (Biosense Webster, Ltd., Israel), David Sommer (Net-Translators)

2 Agenda Introduction Biosense awareness & players Vendor Quality Management practices Biosense challenges ICR benefits, challenges and process Integration Vendor add-ons Program training, checklists, tools and buy-in Symbiosis Wrap-up

3 If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart. Nelson Mandela

4 Presenters Alex: – 20 years in this business – Translator – Writer – Editor – Info Designer – PM – LM – Auditor David: – 15 years in the technology sector 5 Years at Software Testing Center of the SII 7 Years in localization – Managed Large localization projects – Currently Director of Strategic Operations for Localization Vendor

5 Overview Biosense Webster – Various approaches to localization have been tried – Dedicated l10n lead 2 years Identified weaknesses in process Identified quality challenges Search for new methodology Implemented streamlined ICR program Enhanced internal processes to better support localization – New authoring toolset – VM practices – Identify vendor to provide more value and create deeper partnership

6 Overview Net-Translators – Well established in industry – Medium size MLV – Focus on appropriate vertical – Multiple locations of operations staff Time zone – Proven methodology for quality measurement – ISO 13485

7 Client Challenge: Awareness Management Authoring ICR No real go-to person (Accountability) West-bound vendor Looks are deceptive – Deadlines and word rate – CMS transition curve

8 Players QARA Marketing R&D TechComm LBU (ICR) Localization vendor LM Common Sense

9 Vendor Side Quality Management Defining Quality – Understanding/Defining deliverables – Deconstruct the project Examine project scope Assign Tasks to each item Examine outputs of the individual tasks Assign a benchmark of quality for each individual output – Communicate quality benchmarks to client

10 Vendor Side Quality Management Factors Affecting Quality Expectations – Variance between customer and providers perceptions – Variance between providers perception of the clients perception – Variance between quality specs and delivery – Variance between delivery and what is communicated to client – Variance between customers expectations and perceptions

11 Vendor Side Quality Management Defining Quality-Simple Example – Release notes into two languages Linguistic Quality DTP Quality – Layout – Headers/footers – Fonts – Style – Graphics – Tables – Callouts – UI References – etc Time Quality Experiential Quality

12 Linguistic Quality Measurement Choosing a benchmark – TQI – LISA QA Model – SAEJ2450 Quality Metric – DIN 2345 – ASTM F2575 – Other

13 Sample of Quality Benchmark

14 How we use this Quality Benchmark Determine quality of translation Monitor quality over time Track quality trends Create cost efficiencies Identify areas of potential weaknesses

15 Bright Side vs. Dark Side + ICR staff in place CMS deployed Brand names managed Mandate - ICR not in job description Learning curve Translation-hostile No added resources

16 New Localization Program Kick-off Position

17 “Ideal partner” checklist Awareness – Vertical industry field life – Constraints – Regulation Common language – No interpreter needed in client-vendor dialog Commitment – Quality – Deadlines – No conflict of the above Availability – Dedicated staff – Time zones Storm-proof process Competence and professional integrity – Process is not enough – Teamwork is not enough Cost effectiveness

18 In-Country review benefits Well versed resources carry out reviews Adherence to local and evolving regulations Buy-in to processes Accountability Increase clients perceptions of quality Generate cost efficiencies over time Higher rate of acceptance of translations Locale/Industry combination

19 In-Country review challenges Lack of training of reviewers Colleague based – Difficulty in enrolling resource – Managing schedules Differing skill sets between reviewers Challenge of focusing on goals Scheduling conflicts Hidden costs Non-Objective Ensuring that remarks are implemented in future releases

20 In-country review processes Aims of ICR – Generate acceptance of translated materials – Enroll locales in the process making them partners – Regulatory compliance Increase safety Lessen exposure to risk

21 In-country review processes Tools for ICR (or contents of review kit) – Terminology Database (TermBase) pre-approved by same ICR – Exact source text – Instructions which were given to linguistic resources – Style Guide that covers: Measurements Dates Decimals and thousand separators – Mandate for narrow band of changes – Common methodology for reporting issues

22 Integration of processes Integration of vendor and client workflows – Dropped “fire and forget” approach – Integrated teams from both sides – Huge cost efficiencies Vendor provided - L10n infrastructure – Project manager – Engineers – Tools – Linguistic teams – Test teams – etc.

23 Integrated Approach


25 25 Typical Translation Project QARA US QARA CAPLA QARA EMEA Localization Management Team Translation Agency Local Business Units ICR Staff Tech Comm PM

26 26 ICR-Affected Project Stages

27 Add-ons provided by vendor Knowledge of risk management techniques in localization projects Ability to provide knowledge based quality benchmarks Change management techniques Dedicated project team working collaboratively with in-country reviewers Ability to compromise for the sake of workflow

28 Quality management Experience in quality programs Dedicated experienced LPM < 10 years – Manages project team Engineers QC Language resources ICR members – Plans & Defines – Manages timelines – Manages terminology – Risk management – Change management – Content types UI translation Manages DITA xml based content – Troubleshoots i18n issues New projects Delta’s Release notes – Relationship manager

29 Changes In-house QARA Directors WW buy in J&J EMEA QARA Conference – Issue statement – Training! Training! Dedicated Loc Leader appointed – Go-to address – Localization background WW ICR Procedure – QARA Co-signers – ICR part of job description

30 ICR Team Building Who are they? Communication Training Bolts and nuts Mutual satisfaction and attitude

31 In-Country Review – Personnel Key skills – Native speaker of the target language – Adequate language training – Fluent in English – Product knowledge – Target audience knowledge – Team player Staffing – Assigned by LBU – Approved by RA – Trained and tested by LM

32 ICR Training Procedures and skills Administration – ICR Applicability criteria – ICR in localization workflow – Approval form Task handling – Communication – Technicalities – “DO”s and “DON’T”s Terminology

33 33 Reviewer’s Checklist Know why Attend ICR training Take part in creating glossaries and style guides before the translation begins Stick to the terminology you’ve approved Communicate early, often, and widely Follow guidelines Consolidate multiple reviewer comments, submit one review per language Be a part of the continuous improvement process

34 LM Checklist for ICR Know why WW SOP Staffing and accountability Communication Training Terminology Scheduling Feedback delivery and aggregation Guidelines Referee arguments between ICR and LSP Put in place a continuous improvement process specifically for in-country reviews

35 Reviewer Guidelines File Exchange What’s in the files for review? Reviewer’s Role Do/Don’t – Approved original – Mark-up tools – Relevant sections – Objective changes – Change categories Accuracy Terminology Language quality Country standards – Don’t rewrite Acute issues

36 The Symbiosis Separation between business relationship and work relationship – Feels like in-house unit – Easy escalation – No politics involved – No competition for resources 0 time-loss on procurement and admin tasks on both sides – Frame POs – Web portal

37 Summary Is this really an innovation? Reduction: – Costs – TTM Maximized efficiencies Increased quality Enhanced vendor bottom line Partners concentrated on what they do best Peace of mind Built single process from different parts

Download ppt "Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program Alex Lik (Biosense Webster, Ltd., Israel), David Sommer (Net-Translators)"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google