Post by habiba123820 on Nov 5, 2024 18:33:39 GMT 10
Sometimes what people think they want is the opposite of what they actually need. Wise words when it comes to describing how translation buyers often approach their translation needs and requirements . It’s not that the concerns are wrong or illegitimate. But they are often symptoms of a much bigger picture that will achieve better results if approached systemically, as opposed to a reductionist causal analysis. Let’s explain this in English now. 
Statement 1: I am concerned whether your translators can handle our terminology
While this is a legitimate concern, the question could be phrased more productively. Many clients assess translation quality by assigning agencies sample translation tests or even terminology lists . The agencies will then complete these tests, and the clients will then judge who performed best and determine the winner. But there is the fallacy of wordpress web design agency testing: testing is about how good someone is at being tested and is not necessarily a measure or indicator of future performance . Rather than focusing on the ability to produce a high-quality test on demand, it is more productive to assess the overall framework used to handle terminology by asking the right questions in order of importance:
Is knowledge centralized and cloud-based?
Do different people have different levels of read/write permissions?
Can translators add terminology while translating?
Can stakeholders change the terminology whenever it suits them?
Is there a process for terminology extraction?
What is the terminology translation and validation process?
Are there tools to ensure glossaries are being followed?
Can we measure the overall performance of this component?
These questions will paint a very clear picture of how likely a given agency will be able to build and maintain terminology governance at scale . They are a greater indicator of future success than a single terminology test, and they allow buyers to really look under the hood. The lesson is that looking at the framework is typically more important than looking at the outcome of any specific process . It’s like a house. You can always work on the interior design, but redoing the foundation will be a huge headache.
Statement 2: I am concerned about how you select your translators.
Many buyers are concerned about the translator selection process:
How are they chosen?
How many tests do they pass?
How many degrees do they have?
While these questions may have their relevance, they are not deterministic when it comes to translation quality . Translators can often be incredibly well-tested, pass multiple rounds of evaluation, and have all the credentials, but the key question remains: are they able to consistently deliver good work over time? Much more important than how well they test or how good they are on paper is:
How do we track their performance over time?
How do we track changes made by reviewers and clients and use this data to decide who is the best translator for any given project?
This is similar to the testing fallacy. Distant glories are not indicative of future performance. Now, how someone performed yesterday on the same subject indicates how likely they are to perform tomorrow. Performance is more about the framework for tracking data, sharing feedback, and ensuring that we are on a journey of continuous improvement, rather than just being an input -> output scenario .
Statement 3: I'm worried about how much this will cost.
Many clients are particularly concerned about cost. And we understand that. The challenge is that when it comes to cost, the cost of a translation project is often not indicative of the cost over time. In our experience, the methodology and framework matter more. Here are some questions that will help you understand what kind of long-term costs you are facing:
Is the price per word or per net word?
There is a discount according to translation memory levels
How aggressive is this discount?
How many extra fees will be charged when dealing with multimedia files such as videos, e-Learning and Websites?
Some of our clients manage to save more than 1MM per year just by using translation memory.
Statement 1: I am concerned whether your translators can handle our terminology
While this is a legitimate concern, the question could be phrased more productively. Many clients assess translation quality by assigning agencies sample translation tests or even terminology lists . The agencies will then complete these tests, and the clients will then judge who performed best and determine the winner. But there is the fallacy of wordpress web design agency testing: testing is about how good someone is at being tested and is not necessarily a measure or indicator of future performance . Rather than focusing on the ability to produce a high-quality test on demand, it is more productive to assess the overall framework used to handle terminology by asking the right questions in order of importance:
Is knowledge centralized and cloud-based?
Do different people have different levels of read/write permissions?
Can translators add terminology while translating?
Can stakeholders change the terminology whenever it suits them?
Is there a process for terminology extraction?
What is the terminology translation and validation process?
Are there tools to ensure glossaries are being followed?
Can we measure the overall performance of this component?
These questions will paint a very clear picture of how likely a given agency will be able to build and maintain terminology governance at scale . They are a greater indicator of future success than a single terminology test, and they allow buyers to really look under the hood. The lesson is that looking at the framework is typically more important than looking at the outcome of any specific process . It’s like a house. You can always work on the interior design, but redoing the foundation will be a huge headache.
Statement 2: I am concerned about how you select your translators.
Many buyers are concerned about the translator selection process:
How are they chosen?
How many tests do they pass?
How many degrees do they have?
While these questions may have their relevance, they are not deterministic when it comes to translation quality . Translators can often be incredibly well-tested, pass multiple rounds of evaluation, and have all the credentials, but the key question remains: are they able to consistently deliver good work over time? Much more important than how well they test or how good they are on paper is:
How do we track their performance over time?
How do we track changes made by reviewers and clients and use this data to decide who is the best translator for any given project?
This is similar to the testing fallacy. Distant glories are not indicative of future performance. Now, how someone performed yesterday on the same subject indicates how likely they are to perform tomorrow. Performance is more about the framework for tracking data, sharing feedback, and ensuring that we are on a journey of continuous improvement, rather than just being an input -> output scenario .
Statement 3: I'm worried about how much this will cost.
Many clients are particularly concerned about cost. And we understand that. The challenge is that when it comes to cost, the cost of a translation project is often not indicative of the cost over time. In our experience, the methodology and framework matter more. Here are some questions that will help you understand what kind of long-term costs you are facing:
Is the price per word or per net word?
There is a discount according to translation memory levels
How aggressive is this discount?
How many extra fees will be charged when dealing with multimedia files such as videos, e-Learning and Websites?
Some of our clients manage to save more than 1MM per year just by using translation memory.