A software publisher's difficult task of evaluating the quality of a localization is primarily done through their distributor, a local subsidiary, or another localization vendor. For both the publisher and software localization suppliers, each of these options has serious drawbacks. Another solution must be found.

Distributors often lack the skill set and rigorous quality assurance processes to properly evaluate and validate a translation. They may be pre-disposed to refute the localization, resenting that they did not get the translation business as part of their distribution deal with the software publisher or re-publisher. From the publisher's point of view, asking a distributor to review a localized product adds another element to the often difficult publisher/distributor relationship. This "third wheel" position can be obstructive and complicate an already complex process. And still, distributors don't give the publisher what he needs most of all: peace of mind that the localization is of the highest quality.

Subsidiaries often have the technical skill and, though they speak the target language, often lack the linguistic/QA skill to properly evaluate a localization. Also, those who are most in-tune with the product and are in the position technically to review the translation are busiest just when they would be called on to review the localized product--at product launch.

The review process is again clouded, muddled, and slowed by a third party who may have it's own agenda, and while definitely not controlled by the localization firm, is often troublesome for the home office. Reviews get delayed and the localizer gets blamed as he watches his cost increase and the product stagnate.

A third party review organized by the publisher is often problematic for the primary localizer and increases the overhead and headache in dealing both with the publisher and the secondary vendor. The company that reviews the translation will be pre- disposed to reject it in the hope of securing all of the client's business in the future. Sound familiar?

International Communications, and others in the localization industry, would like to propose an alternative: what we call the Localization Validation Authority or LVA.

The LVA would be founded by non-fee paying members of the localization industry. Each would sign a non-disclosure, non-compete agreement to evaluate other member's work on a case-by-case basis and give it the LVA stamp of approval. As one member begins a translation project, he contacts another member with whom he is comfortable working, and schedules a review process. The price is agreed upon and is offered to the publisher as a part of the complete localization process.

What is the benefit to the software publishers and localization companies?

Review would be peer-based. This will improve the quality of the review as well as the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and overall quality of the dependent process tasks; namely implementation of changes and final quality assurance. There would be no motivation to refute a translation for other reasons than quality. The playing field would be leveled. For localizers and publishers - WIN/WIN.

Members who themselves espouse high quality standards will interact with other members with similar standards. They will realize that their relationship with a reviewer can be jeopardized by dumping them with a bad translation. If a member consistently gets poor quality work from another member, then in the future he will refuse to review their work. As the word gets out and no one will review their translations, poor quality members will be isolated and forced to withdraw. We will be our own watchdogs. The quality of the LVA membership will increase and its reputation as a measure of quality and will be enhanced. Continued membership in the LVA would be a marketable measure of the localization company's commitment to quality. For publishers, localizers and the LVA - WIN/WIN/WIN.

By reviewing each member's translations, localizers can tap into the validation market, thereby increasing business by an estimated 5% to 10%. An increase that will also improve the internal review process, throughput, and profitability. WIN/WIN.

To summarize: localization companies would see their jobs become easier as the crucial review cycle is handled by impartial professionals. Localizers would tap a new market without changing their primary focus. And once the LVA stamp gains a solid reputation for quality, publishers would know that the localized version of their product meets or exceeds the highest standards.