Better-Cheaper-Faster Localization
What's more fun than having to rush your work? Rushing your work in multiple languages, of course!
This week, one client needed a couple of mid-length documents (totaling 5,000 words) translated from Spanish to English. Once they had read them and prepared answers, those answers (about 9,000 words) needed to be translated from English to Spanish. The turnaround was 5 workdays from first handoff to final approval, with plenty of text changes in the mix.
Are you familiar with the better-cheaper-faster triangle? Any kind of work puts you in the middle of that triangle, and the closer you get to any corner, the further you drift from the others. You can even figure out a way to get two of these qualities, but you can't have all three at the same time. (No, really; you can't.)
We spent a lot of time on that triangle this week, but we were the only ones who saw the "better" corner. The client was thinking only in terms of "cheaper" and "faster," so we had the privilege of thinking "better" for them. I proofread the translations as they were handed off, and they were a long way from "better."
Mind you, they weren't awful - well, actually, one of them read like the English instruction manual to 1967 Datsun - but it was obvious that they hadn't had a good scrub by a translation editor. Still, if you're after cheaper-faster, or even just cheaper, there's not much room for an editor.
The vendor's project manager explained that they had had to break the job into pieces - certainly among translators and maybe even among sub-vendors - to meet the deadline, and that that might explain some terminology differences. It did indeed explain them, but I'm the one my client would have barbecued if we hadn't introduced a bit more "better" to the mix.
Of course there were rush charges, and the clients understood why. That didn't prevent them from sprinkling in text changes all along; it probably encouraged them, since they wanted to get their money's worth.
So, what would you have done? Would you have delivered the translation with a caveat emptor concerning translation quality, given the time-squeeze? Have you ever done that? How did the client accept it? Which is your favorite: better, cheaper or faster?
This week, one client needed a couple of mid-length documents (totaling 5,000 words) translated from Spanish to English. Once they had read them and prepared answers, those answers (about 9,000 words) needed to be translated from English to Spanish. The turnaround was 5 workdays from first handoff to final approval, with plenty of text changes in the mix.
Are you familiar with the better-cheaper-faster triangle? Any kind of work puts you in the middle of that triangle, and the closer you get to any corner, the further you drift from the others. You can even figure out a way to get two of these qualities, but you can't have all three at the same time. (No, really; you can't.)
We spent a lot of time on that triangle this week, but we were the only ones who saw the "better" corner. The client was thinking only in terms of "cheaper" and "faster," so we had the privilege of thinking "better" for them. I proofread the translations as they were handed off, and they were a long way from "better."
Mind you, they weren't awful - well, actually, one of them read like the English instruction manual to 1967 Datsun - but it was obvious that they hadn't had a good scrub by a translation editor. Still, if you're after cheaper-faster, or even just cheaper, there's not much room for an editor.
The vendor's project manager explained that they had had to break the job into pieces - certainly among translators and maybe even among sub-vendors - to meet the deadline, and that that might explain some terminology differences. It did indeed explain them, but I'm the one my client would have barbecued if we hadn't introduced a bit more "better" to the mix.
Of course there were rush charges, and the clients understood why. That didn't prevent them from sprinkling in text changes all along; it probably encouraged them, since they wanted to get their money's worth.
So, what would you have done? Would you have delivered the translation with a caveat emptor concerning translation quality, given the time-squeeze? Have you ever done that? How did the client accept it? Which is your favorite: better, cheaper or faster?
Labels: localization risk, localization vendor, rush translation, translation quality
posted by John White, Localization Guy at
18:00
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home