Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program

Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program

Alex Lik (Biosense Webster, Ltd., Israel), David Sommer (Net-Translators)

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

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

Presenters

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

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

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

Players

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

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

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

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

Linguistic Quality Measurement

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

Sample of Quality Benchmark

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

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

New Localization Program Kick-off Position

“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

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

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

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

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

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.

Integrated Approach

Integrated Approach

25

Typical Translation ProjectQARA USQARA US QARA QARA

CAPLACAPLAQARA QARA EMEAEMEA

Localization Management TeamLocalization Management Team

Translation AgencyTranslation Agency Local Business UnitsLocal Business Units

ICR StaffICR Staff

Tech Tech CommComm

PMPM

26

ICR-Affected Project StagesKick-off

Project Plan by LM (engage Marketing, RA, and TC)

Contract + Preps with Translation Agency

Content Ready by TC Translation Package by LM

Translation Effort Necessity Recognized; LM Informed

Translation ICR + Draft 2 Final Translation

Translation Signed Approval and Release Post-Mortem

What documents and what languages? (Marketing and QA/RA)

Translation vendor selected; ICR instructions and personnel lists refreshed;

SLA Verified

Quote received; PO issued; instructions given to ICR and translators;Glossary and TM updated and approved

by ICR;

Docs to be translated ready at Draft 1 level

Files to be translated are packed and delivered to the translation vendor; ICR standing by

Updated translation undergoes ICR and last changes if necessary

Final translation is Approved, Released, and Archived

Parties analyze specific points of success or lack thereof during the project. Particular attention is paid to the TM changes that are deemed necessary for future activities.

Plan

Prep

Make

Release

TEP->Test DTP->QA->Final DTPIn-Country Review;

Content Updates, etc.

In-Country Review comments and other feedback implemented.

Content deltas translated. Final Translation QAed by the agency

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

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

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

ICR Team Building

• Who are they?• Communication• Training• Bolts and nuts• Mutual satisfaction and attitude

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

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

Reviewer’s ChecklistKnow whyAttend ICR training Take part in creating glossaries and style guides before

the translation beginsStick to the terminology you’ve approvedCommunicate early, often, and widelyFollow guidelinesConsolidate multiple reviewer comments, submit one

review per languageBe a part of the continuous improvement process

LM Checklist for ICRKnow whyWW SOPStaffing and accountabilityCommunicationTrainingTerminologySchedulingFeedback delivery and aggregationGuidelinesReferee arguments between ICR and LSPPut in place a continuous improvement process

specifically for in-country reviews

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

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

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