What is validation really?

Everyone agrees that translation validation is a critical step in delivering a quality localization that is ready for end users. However, who provides it, how it should be done and who pays are issues our industry still struggles with. The LISA QA Model, the DIN 2345 Standard, and ISO 9002 certifications obtained by publishers and localization vendors deal with validation in one way or another. But in our daily lives, validation is generally an afterthought.

In attempting to define validation, I first came up with a sarcastic formalization:

Validation is a process by which those who haven’t mastered a foreign language transfer responsibility for quality to people who don't know what they are supposed to do.

This apparent mockery revealed itself as close to the truth when I reviewed some past projects in which validation was involved. Actually, though, validation should be the process by which native speakers evaluate a translated product in the context of its usage to determine the acceptability of language, format and functionality.

Validation is neither proofreading nor editing as, by definition, the translation vendor must provide linguistically correct text. The validator’s job should focus on issues such as technical consistency, completeness, and adherence to agreed to standards.

The purpose of validation is to make sure that the translation includes terminology that the publisher uses to position its products in international markets and follows the usage preferred by end-users in each of those markets.

Who qualifies as a validator?

Validators should be native speakers of the target language with a basic understanding of the source language; extensive knowledge of the application; and a keen awareness of the end users' level of technical expertise. For example, a doctor should not validate accounting software, an engineer should not validate medical applications, and a trainee should not validate technical material.

Validation is not the time for content changes to the source material. Not only should the validator have a firm grasp of the concept behind the document or the software’s intended use, he or she should also be in agreement with the terminology choices in the source materials.

This brings me to another important point: preparing and setting the expectations of validators for their role in the process is often what sets apart a good validation process from a negative one. Most vendors have experienced the backlash from an unprepared validator who drives negative press within the publisher’s offices regarding the quality of the translation—when in fact, what he really didn’t like was the quality of the source material.

How does validation affect quality?

Validation should be the final stage of quality assurance. This isn't to say that a publisher is ultimately responsible for quality. Most translation vendors take steps to ensure a high level of quality throughout the process. However, validation is the step whereby the application specialist ensures that materials have truly been localized.

Aspects involving language, format and functionality should be evaluated and measured to determine the acceptability of a deliverable. The earlier the validation starts, the better the end product will tend to be.

How can I be sure that I'm getting the most from my validation?

Precise details will vary from customer to customer and project to project. There are a number of different basic approaches, which are covered by the LISA QA Model, DIN 2345, and ISO 9002. However, the key steps for good validations are:

1. Involve the validator(s) in the planning stage. (This includes making them aware of all the specifications given to or used by the vendors.)
2. Involve the validators in the planning stage. (Did I say that already?)
3. Give validator(s) guidance on what their company expects them to look for in the validation process. Again, this prepares validators for the process!
4. Adhere to a strict validation schedule agreed with the publisher. Many a vendor can tell you about the “black hole” of validation.
5. Don’t wait until the end of a phase to start validating. Language validation can be run in parallel with translation.
6. Create a validated glossary and agree on a style guide before any material is translated. Getting key terms translated and approved at the beginning of the process will speed up the entire project and eliminate rework.
7. To ensure that the comments are consistent with the original translation guidelines, the original translators should implement validator comments.
8. Create an appropriate forum for open discussion between validators and translators. This creates an environment well suited to the pursuit of quality and innovative solutions.
9. Provide translators with good reference material. If translators can see previously validated translations, they can use the same terminology to minimize future validation time.

What are some potential problems preventing successful validation?

It is commonplace to find “in-country” validators who have other day-to-day responsibilities and have been given the task of validating on top of their normal work duties. This creates a snowball effect of negatives. There can be a lack of focus due to distractions leading in turn to a whole series of potential hazards. It can cause less than thorough reviews; severe lag times in turnaround; and rewrites that produce discrepancies with the original meaning of the source text.

We therefore need to agree to do each other a favor and give validation responsibilities to someone or a team of someone’s who can give it the attention it deserves.

How does the use of translation tools affect validation?

In theory, tools shouldn't affect validation the first time the project is done. Once again, planning is key here. In the case of help files and UIs, appropriate scripts should be designed and the scope of the validation should be agreed up-front.

A common issue is when a publisher moves to a new vendor and an existing translation memory is used. The new vendor must evaluate the quality of the memory and the style in which the memory was created. This is very important prior to beginning the actual translation, otherwise inconsistencies will be found later and correcting those inconsistencies will delay the final results. This same issue of inconsistencies may arise when memories for different products are merged to generate new material.

Who pays for validation?

Obviously, validation is an activity and therefore incurs a cost that must be borne by the publisher. When the publisher performs validation, it is often a hidden cost, especially when the publisher’s staff or distributor do the validation. The actual cost is rarely captured in accounting terms, despite the fact that someone has typically stopped his or her core activity (sales, support, marketing, or administration) to perform the validation.

However, the ultimate and most expensive cost for validation is the negative feedback from end users who cannot use the product. This leads to bad publicity, unsatisfactory press reviews, and loss of sales.

If the publisher doesn’t have a resource for the validation process, who do you use?

An appropriate alternative would be to use independent validators, the same way as you use independent auditors to validate accounting practices. An industry specialist is hired to act as a consultant on the project and spends the necessary time being trained and auditing existing materials to acquire a good command of the local company language.

It is acceptable to use another vendor as a validator. However, steps 1, 2, and 3 (planning and setting expectations) described above are extremely important in this case. Otherwise, it will be very hard to prevent the “validation vendor” from marking down the “translation vendor” in the anticipation of getting the next job from the client.

How do you maintain the project schedule when validation is part of the process?

A common problem for localization vendors is meeting schedules when the publisher is responsible for the validation. Again, getting a commitment from the client up-front on the days set aside for validation is imperative. The publishers driving the importance of meeting the deadline with their in-country validators will also help keep things on track. Making plain what effect the delay in validation could have on the project is always important.

More formalized penalties can also be put in place that delay final delivery of the project by the same time frame as the delay in validation.

In summary...

Validation is an extremely important part of the quality equation. However, most project managers are more concerned with completing the product on time than with validation.

The key is to make validation an integral part of the project and to include the master validation plan and deliverables as a series of tasks on the critical path in the total project schedule.

Critical success factors are choosing the right people, good (and thorough) communication, and clear delineation of responsibilities. It should be a collaborative effort.

The validation process should be discussed during the starting phase of the project, budgeted and followed-through by the vendor and the publisher.

---

Renato S. Beninatto
Language Management International
Rua Voluntários da Pátria, 126 – 5º andar
Rio de Janeiro – RJ –
CEP 22270-010
Brazil
Tel +55 21 539-2398
Fax +55 21 286-2811
E-mail renatob@lmiinc.com.br