1. Project Management Integration in Translation Projects Birthe Mousten bmo@asb.dk

2. Aims: To include and evaluate project management tools in connection with a translation project in a cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary virtual team. Contents and participants: A process flow involving a combination of a technical writing and a technical translation project including students from ASB and students from North Dakota State University. Form: Computer-mediation as the virtual means of running the project in a virtual team: email, skype. Time line: Weeks 8-12, 2010 (please see slide with detailed time lines). Project aims and contents

3. Project documents: Project charter: Specifying aims and contents, and major time lines in the project (please see slide above). Pre-learning reports: Personal data, private lives, leisure time, expectations to cooperation, reservations about cooperation, barriers to overcome. Texts received:Texts from US authors, informative texts, report form. Virtual team list: A list combining the virtual team members in the two countries. Translation brief: A specification form prepared by the translator, filled in by the technical writer about the intended purpose of the translated text. Work organization plan in virtual group (WBS): Division of work processes with deadlines – Danish part. Action log: A list of the work processes in the virtual group – Danish part. Communication examples: Examples of emails, etc. Final texts: The translated texts are uploaded and forwarded to US students. Feedback comments in texts: To Danish students from me before videoconference. Report: On the process, the results of the videoconference and subsequent discussion in class. To students, the US teams and ?

4. Project Time Line, scheduled: Week 8: Deadline 26 th February – NDSU present their technical documentation. Week 9: 1-5 March – ASB students work on the translation. Dialogue takes place between NDSU and ASB students via email, skype etc. according to the students’ own choice. Week 10: 8-12th March – Evaluation at seminars in the US and DK. Week 12: An online/skype (or by other means) seminar between the US-DK students and lecturers for knowledge and experience sharing. 25 th March, 2010.

5. Project Time Line, actual: Week 8: Deadline 26 th February – NDSU present their technical documentation. Week 9: 1-5 March – ASB students work on the translation. Dialogue takes place between NDSU and ASB students via email, skype etc. according to the students’ own choice. Weeks 9/10: Texts arriving 5 th -10 th March. Week 10:Evaluation at seminars in the US and DK. 8-12th March Weeks 10/11: Project work 10 th -23 rd March. Week 12: An online/skype (or by other means) seminar between the US-DK students and lecturers for knowledge and experience sharing. 25 th March. Week 12: Videoconference with participants from NDSU and ASB with a discussion of the texts and the project 25 th March.

6. Project results - project steps: 1) The evaluations at both sides of the Atlantic in week 10 simply vanished from the process. 2) The squeeze of the time line had a tremendous, negative impact on the Danish students. 3) Some of the steps in the translation/revision phases either disappeared or were reduced.

7. Project results - project quality: Varied a lot. Some very good solutions. Some adequate solutions. Some solutions with unresolved questions. 1) US students: Did not proofread their texts, which meant unnecessary communication about trifle matters. Had copied bits and pieces, paragraphs, even almost one whole text from Wikipedia. 2) DK students: Followed a translation-revision-correction process as far as possible. Had been trained throughout the previous semester for all assignments given, and went without problems, except in one example. Few errors, though existing. Communication process with US students was problematic. Some processes went smoothly, others not at all.

8. Project results – culture clashes: 1)US students uncertain about what was needed for translation – major risk of ‘misbehaviour’. 2)US students made some good texts on interesting topics. 3)US students tried to help the translators by inserting a glossary with definitions after the text – the Danish students felt spoken down to. 4)Danish students felt that US students did not take the task seriously. 5)Danish students felt disappointed that the US students had so many mistakes in their language with a resulting need for communication about clarification of matters. Danish students sometimes asked about linguistic clarification questions to spite the US writers’ language. 6)Danish students felt that the US students had stolen too much text from other sources. 7)Danish students felt proud that they had accomplished the task, despite……! 8)Danish students felt that the US students seemed so young (probably contrasting view from the US). 9)Danish students felt appalled by the idea expressed by one US student at the videoconference that the US authors could check the quality by running it through Google’s translator. 10)I need some more feedback from the US students to get a better picture of their sentiments and experience from the project. 11)The two fields need to know a lot more about each others’ work fields and work methods.

9. Post mortem ideas: 1)US students revise and proofread their texts before sending them. 2)Deadlines have to be kept. 3)Communication has to be answered. 4)Finding a way of giving the US students better insight into the results. 5)Respecting the strengths and weaknesses of the other discipline. 6)Need to move from asymmetry to symmetry and sympathy and ”symposium.” Symmetry – original Greek meaning that pieces have the right measurements, ie. can be put together.