No ideal model

Some customers insist on buying their localization services "in country" from national translation companies. Others prefer one-stop shopping, confident that their main contractor will be capable of managing the entire process. There are also customers who maintain an internal localization management staff and out source to freelancers. And then there are customers who become competitors. There seems to be no standard model. All the players in the field claim that they are adding value in the localization process. I am confused, and it is with nostalgia that I remember the times when everything seemed to be so simple.

Looking at what is perhaps the most common model - the one-stop shopping model - I am surprised when I examine the cost analysis. The Italian translation company may receive around forty to fifty percent of the rate per word charged to the customer; the translator may see twenty to twenty-five percent of this in his bank account. Is the value added by the localization contractor worth the fifty to sixty percent difference in cost? Very often the localization company will charge the customer extra for special tasks such as project management and technical support. Mind you, I am not accusing anyone of over charging - after all, the translation industry has fewer millionaires than most other industries. I am just trying to understand the rationale, account for the bottlenecks and widen the perception of the localization process.

From what I have seen over the years in the localization market, there appears to be a large overlap in the things that people do, whether they are carried out on-site at customers' premises, by localization companies, or by translation companies in the target countries. Of course, not all of them will implement precisely the same project management, quality control and checking procedures. In many cases the processes of the customer and the localization partner may fit perfectly and the overlaps only occur downstream when the work is handed over to the various translation agencies. In essence, I think most insiders in the industry will agree with me that the localization process is neither a rationalized standard process, nor an efficient one.

Perceived value and real value

Customers, as well as localization companies, spend a lot of time on communication, project assessment and management, checking, incorporating changes, and problem reporting and solving. - These essential tasks taken together may easily account for up to thirty or forty percent of the localization costs and cannot be dispensed with. We all know this. That is how our projects come and go. That is also why we prefer to work with people we know - people we trust. Lack of standardization and rationalization force us to work on the basis of trust and confidence. Perceived value overshadows real value.

Decisions on how we work, and with whom, are not always rational ones. Price is obviously important, but other factors such as trust, confidence, financial stability, availability of resources and geographic proximity of the supplier are important considerations. But perceptions of value may sometimes be flawed. How many localization projects turned out to be much more costly than budgeted, or take much longer than planned, owing to misjudgement? Misjudgement or fate?

The fate of the localization industry

Let's face it, there is a fundamental problem in the localization industry that nobody so far has been able to overcome. a product developed at one central location then needs to be localized at multiple locations around the world. It has been historically difficult to establish effective and successful communications between a team of product developers working together on-site at a central location and multiple teams of localizers in many different organizations in the capitals of the world. Centralization of localization seemed to be the solution to this problem, but those who went down this route now admit that localization cannot be centralized.

The translation market is traditionally very decentralized. Many translators work from home. Some do work in their customers' offices from time to time, but most prefer their own quiet working environment. Bringing translators of different nationalities together at one location may work on a single project but is doomed to fail when the flow of work is interrupted. This has lead some to think of the translation market as a cottage industry. However, in this modern age, it is more appropriate to regard translators as advanced teleworkers.

In my view access to specialist and reliable translation resources is the essential value that customers are looking for. Access to translation resources is what localization contractors are offering. They build "bridges" through their project management services and quality control procedures. But in comparison with other industries, the localization industry has still a very poor infrastructure. I always like to contrast it with the travel industry, where every travel agent is able to tell you instantly whether there is a seat free on any particular journey and what it will cost. While the comparison is not perfect, think of the possibilities for our industry if the "agent" could confirm the availability of translators in ten different languages and tell you there and then what it's all going to cost.

Translation and technology

It is surprising how quickly we adapt to new technology and forget the way we used to work. Looking back over the past ten years great strides have been made in the use of technology in the translation profession. Only ten years ago telex was the most advanced way of communication. Today most professional translators work on a computer and have a modem or at least a fax machine. Many translators are used to working with terminology and translation memory tools. It is hard to imagine that all of this happened in such a short time.

A lot of effort has been put into automating this thing called "translation" and yet, as we have seen, translation represents only part of the cost and time spent in localization. More effort needs to be put into integrating the back and front ends of the localization process. It is time to ask ourselves what more technology - and in particular communications technology - can do for the industry.

Teletranslation

A second revolution is about to hit the translation market - the "teletranslation revolution". This revolution will, in my view, have a great impact on the way translators work and the way customers use translation services. Teletranslation is the next major advance in addressing the problems of the translation and the localization industries.

Teletranslation can be described as the perfect marriage between language services and communications technology. We can see the way things are shaping up with a couple of dozen translation services available already on the Internet.

CompuServe offers automatic message translation as well as a "human" translation service. Europe Online will soon launch a European online service with ALPNET supplying translation services. AT&T is in the translation business and probably most of the other telecommunications corporations (telcos) are making plans to penetrate this market as well.

These days, cost and transmission integrity are no longer a barrier to using phone or modem lines. The telcos and value-added network providers realize that language is the last barrier to effective global communications. They will do whatever they can to break down this final barrier.

Imagine

Imagine a world where all translators are linked to a global network - a world where we can send and receive files electronically, fast and reliably, to and from any location in the world. Imagine us all using the same pricing models with firm pricing information instantly available online. Imagine us all using the same planning parameters, determining capacity, availability and booking orders online. Imagine translators communicating and working together as and when needed without leaving their homes, sharing terminology and reference material online. Imagine a networked forum where reference material, tips on resources and tools can be shared. Imagine customers, localization project managers and translators "meeting" at video conferences using the same network. And imagine payment procedures that are standard and simple.

I do not believe teletranslation will eliminate the need for translation or localization companies. Teletranslation is not a simplistic process of connecting all customers directly with all translators. All of the non-translation tasks in the table above will still need to be accomplished. Projects still need to be managed, schedules monitored, resources arbitrated, and problems handled. But with the advances in teletranslation, the entire process can be more straightforward, more efficient, more simple, and more reliable.

In a world where teletranslation is commonplace, localization will be more cost- effective and less time consuming. Less time will be spent on repeat phone calls, tiring travelling, adjusting schedules, communicating changes and checking each other's work. Is this only a dream or does reality beckon?

A shared mission

Thousands of companies in the global travel industry can work together and use the same booking network. Hundreds of banks around the world can work together and ensure reliable transactions through a shared network system. So why can't the translation market do the same? The Information Super Highway could have been invented with the translation market in mind. All the indicators suggest that this is the case with thousands of teleworkers, hundreds of thousands of users, a rapidly increasing volume of work, shared databases and online transactions. There are no technical reasons why it should not work.

On a practical level, the fragmentation of our industry is the most serious impediment to the realization of this "dream". In order to make teletranslation work effectively, buyers and suppliers of translation services must get their act together and agree on basic standards for the industry. Even though translation is already being offered through the Internet and CompuServe, and more and more translators are getting connected, effective teletranslation will require much more than just going online. It will require standardization of non- competitive business elements such as communications formats, planning and pricing parameters, and task definitions. This standardization must be done while still catering for differences in approach between competitors and different levels of service to customers. Teletranslation will not mean that everyone does localization in exactly the same way. It will, however, help in removing a major obstacle to the simplification of the cost value chain in our industry.

A call to action

All too often narrow self interest stands in the way of wider universal benefits. And yet, the way I see it, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain if we cooperate in building a better infrastructure for our industry. The need for translation and localization services is growing rapidly. The easier we make it to access language services, the more they will be used. It is in the interests of all the major players in this market, whether from the demand or from the supply side, to cooperate in the building of the enhanced infrastructure that teletranslation makes possible.

The major players in the translation/localization markets and their representative institutes and associations would do well to recognize the important part they are being called upon to play in shaping the future of the translation/localization industry. They will have the opportunity to cooperate in working towards the transparent networking of translation resources. To get this thing off the ground I propose the establishing of an institution which will represent the translation and localization service industries. The goal of this institution will be to facilitate and support networking in the global translation marketplace. Its specific tasks would be standardization of communications formats and procedures, networking support to individual translators and translation companies, standardization of planning and costing parameters, ensuring simple and secure payment procedures for teletranslation services, and promoting teletranslation to value- added network service providers, telecommunications companies and to corporate users. Industry organizations such as LISA, FIT, translators associations and translation company associations can play a key role in the setting-up of this institution.

The fate of the localization industry, like any other industry, is that in order to survive, we must adapt, standardize, and utilize new advances in technology to make us more efficient. We can have this adaptation thrust upon us externally, or we can cooperate and do it from within.

A Commentary

Although I agree with Jaap van der Meer's statements concerning the commercial benefits of standardizing the industry, particulary the communications aspect, his article is not very revealing. Most of what he says is well known among LISA members and other localization professionals. The idea of creating a new institution is a two-pronged sword. It could add considerable value to the LISA network - especially translation vendors, or, it could become counter productive to LISA, because the goals would be more or less the same. I am not sure whether it is realistic these days to set up new institutions instead of strengthening existing ones.

Maybe there are two more realistic scenarios: (1) On the European level, to apply for projects at DG XIII in Language Engineering. Collaborating with localization standards development groups like EAGLES, DOCWARE and GLOSSASOFT can yield distinct advantages for all players concerned with communications and technology improvements. (2) On an international level the LISA secretariat could be extended to focus on more content oriented projects by actively participating in the work mentioned. Indeed, action is called for and Jaap has already been invited to elaborate his views at the first LISA Forum in early 1996.

Michael Anobile
LISA Director