Making Sense out of Outsourcing Localization to China - Part 2/2

[Continuation of last week's post, Part 1]

Since it was my charter to make this offshored localization project work, we built checkpoints into the project to detect problems as soon as they arose.

We scheduled bite-sized chunks of translation, engineering, layout and editing work early in the project, then handed them off for review in our client’s in-country offices. We established twice-per-week conference calls with the vendor’s team to reinforce the decisions we made in e-mail threads. To overcome low TM matches and shorten the project schedule, we sent source and target files from previous projects for realignment in TM. We agreed mutually on a format for weekly reports that would highlight project status without becoming onerous. In short, we followed every prescription for a successful localization project, and we followed them more carefully than normal.

Our client’s Korean office has expressed satisfaction with the final product. The decision-makers, pleased that nothing went awry – at least, nothing that required their intervention or remorse – asked for a post-partum on the project, in which I underscored these points:

· It was a pleasure dealing with the vendor. They were prompt, courteous, efficient and unequivocally determined to making us happy.

· Even with the short time allowed for the project, they brought to our attention errors in the source materials and they addressed what they considered pre-existing translation issues.

· Their end of the conference calls was noisy to the point of distracting. Several of them in a meeting room with poor acoustics talking into a cheap speakerphone made for frustrating encounters twice a week, regardless of whose bridge we used. The project succeeded in spite of it, but it struck me as a poor choice of places to save money.

· It became apparent that they were cutting corners in ways that experienced LSPs don’t bother trying to cut them (rogue copy of TM software; use of a shareware help compiler on a project that depended on features unique to RoboHelp; testing on Windows MUI instead of native localized OS). I can overlook some things like this, but I’d rather not have to.

Our client had already localized this product into Korean over several versions for a number of years, qualifying it as a sustaining effort. Vendors in China and India have done a brisk business in sustaining engineering, especially for large IT companies with legacy code bases. Naturally, they are turning the corner towards new product engineering, which, like localizing a product for the first time, demands more of the relationship between client and vendor.

Recommendation: If your team is sufficiently aware of what it takes to localize your product, and has a history of successful localization, then testing the waters with a Chinese or Indian vendor in 2008 should be among your options. If your organization is new to localization or must entrust the process to someone who is, this might prove rash. In no event, however, should you simply find the lowest price, lob your product over the partition and hope for the best.

If you enjoyed this post, please read the related article, "Offshoring and localization projects, Part I."