Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program

1. Case Study: Collaborative Translation Quality Program Alex Lik (Biosense Webster, Ltd., Israel), David Sommer (Net-Translators)

2. Agenda • Introduction • Biosense awareness & players • Vendor Quality Management practices • Biosense challenges • ICR benefits, challenges and process • Integration • Vendor add-ons • Program training, checklists, tools and buy-in • Symbiosis • Wrap-up

3. If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart. Nelson Mandela

4. Presenters • Alex: • 20 years in this business • Translator • Writer • Editor • Info Designer • PM • LM • Auditor • David: • 15 years in the technology sector • 5 Years at Software Testing Center of the SII • 7 Years in localization • Managed Large localization projects • Currently Director of Strategic Operations for Localization Vendor

5. Overview • Biosense Webster • Various approaches to localization have been tried • Dedicated l10n lead 2 years • Identified weaknesses in process • Identified quality challenges • Search for new methodology • Implemented streamlined ICR program • Enhanced internal processes to better support localization • New authoring toolset • VM practices • Identify vendor to provide more value and create deeper partnership

6. Overview • Net-Translators • Well established in industry • Medium size MLV • Focus on appropriate vertical • Multiple locations of operations staff • Time zone • Proven methodology for quality measurement • ISO 13485

7. Client Challenge: Awareness • Management • Authoring • ICR • No real go-to person (Accountability) • West-bound vendor • Looks are deceptive • Deadlines and word rate • CMS transition curve

8. Players • QARA • Marketing • R&D • TechComm • LBU (ICR) • Localization vendor • LM • Common Sense

9. Vendor Side Quality Management • Defining Quality • Understanding/Defining deliverables • Deconstruct the project • Examine project scope • Assign Tasks to each item • Examine outputs of the individual tasks • Assign a benchmark of quality for each individual output • Communicate quality benchmarks to client

10. Vendor Side Quality Management • Factors Affecting Quality Expectations • Variance between customer and providers perceptions • Variance between providers perception of the clients perception • Variance between quality specs and delivery • Variance between delivery and what is communicated to client • Variance between customers expectations and perceptions

11. Vendor Side Quality Management • Defining Quality-Simple Example • Release notes into two languages • Linguistic Quality • DTP Quality • Layout • Headers/footers • Fonts • Style • Graphics • Tables • Callouts • UI References • etc • Time Quality • Experiential Quality

12. Linguistic Quality Measurement • Choosing a benchmark • TQI • LISA QA Model • SAEJ2450 Quality Metric • DIN 2345 • ASTM F2575 • Other

13. Sample of Quality Benchmark

14. How we use this Quality Benchmark • Determine quality of translation • Monitor quality over time • Track quality trends • Create cost efficiencies • Identify areas of potential weaknesses

15. Bright Side vs. Dark Side + - ICR not in job description Learning curve Translation-hostile No added resources • ICR staff in place • CMS deployed • Brand names managed • Mandate

16. New Localization Program Kick-off Position

17. “Ideal partner” checklist • Awareness • Vertical industry field life • Constraints • Regulation • Common language • No interpreter needed in client-vendor dialog • Commitment • Quality • Deadlines • No conflict of the above • Availability • Dedicated staff • Time zones • Storm-proof process • Competence and professional integrity • Process is not enough • Teamwork is not enough • Cost effectiveness

18. In-Country review benefits • Well versed resources carry out reviews • Adherence to local and evolving regulations • Buy-in to processes • Accountability • Increase clients perceptions of quality • Generate cost efficiencies over time • Higher rate of acceptance of translations • Locale/Industry combination

19. In-Country review challenges • Lack of training of reviewers • Colleague based • Difficulty in enrolling resource • Managing schedules • Differing skill sets between reviewers • Challenge of focusing on goals • Scheduling conflicts • Hidden costs • Non-Objective • Ensuring that remarks are implemented in future releases

20. In-country review processes • Aims of ICR • Generate acceptance of translated materials • Enroll locales in the process making them partners • Regulatory compliance • Increase safety • Lessen exposure to risk

21. In-country review processes • Tools for ICR (or contents of review kit) • Terminology Database (TermBase) pre-approved by same ICR • Exact source text • Instructions which were given to linguistic resources • Style Guide that covers: • Measurements • Dates • Decimals and thousand separators • Mandate for narrow band of changes • Common methodology for reporting issues

22. Integration of processes • Integration of vendor and client workflows • Dropped “fire and forget” approach • Integrated teams from both sides • Huge cost efficiencies • Vendor provided - L10n infrastructure • Project manager • Engineers • Tools • Linguistic teams • Test teams • etc.

23. Integrated Approach

24. Integrated Approach

25. Typical Translation Project PM QARA US QARA EMEA QARA CAPLA Tech Comm Localization Management Team Translation Agency Local Business Units ICR Staff

26. ICR-Affected Project Stages

27. Add-ons provided by vendor • Knowledge of risk management techniques in localization projects • Ability to provide knowledge based quality benchmarks • Change management techniques • Dedicated project team working collaboratively with in-country reviewers • Ability to compromise for the sake of workflow

28. Quality management • Experience in quality programs • Dedicated experienced LPM < 10 years • Manages project team • Engineers • QC • Language resources • ICR members • Plans & Defines • Manages timelines • Manages terminology • Risk management • Change management • Content types • UI translation • Manages DITA xml based content • Troubleshoots i18n issues • New projects • Delta’s • Release notes • Relationship manager

29. Changes In-house • QARA Directors WW buy in • J&J EMEA QARA Conference • Issue statement • Training! Training! • Dedicated Loc Leader appointed • Go-to address • Localization background • WW ICR Procedure • QARA Co-signers • ICR part of job description

30. ICR Team Building • Who are they? • Communication • Training • Bolts and nuts • Mutual satisfaction and attitude

31. In-Country Review – Personnel • Key skills • Native speaker of the target language • Adequate language training • Fluent in English • Product knowledge • Target audience knowledge • Team player • Staffing • Assigned by LBU • Approved by RA • Trained and tested by LM

32. ICR Training • Procedures and skills • Administration • ICR Applicability criteria • ICR in localization workflow • Approval form • Task handling • Communication • Technicalities • “DO”s and “DON’T”s • Terminology

33. Reviewer’s Checklist • Know why • Attend ICR training • Take part in creating glossaries and style guides before the translation begins • Stick to the terminology you’ve approved • Communicate early, often, and widely • Follow guidelines • Consolidate multiple reviewer comments, submit one review per language • Be a part of the continuous improvement process

34. LM Checklist for ICR • Know why • WW SOP • Staffing and accountability • Communication • Training • Terminology • Scheduling • Feedback delivery and aggregation • Guidelines • Referee arguments between ICR and LSP • Put in place a continuous improvement process specifically for in-country reviews

35. Reviewer Guidelines • File Exchange • What’s in the files for review? • Reviewer’s Role • Do/Don’t • Approved original • Mark-up tools • Relevant sections • Objective changes • Change categories • Accuracy • Terminology • Language quality • Country standards • Don’t rewrite • Acute issues

36. The Symbiosis • Separation between business relationship and work relationship • Feels like in-house unit • Easy escalation • No politics involved • No competition for resources • 0 time-loss on procurement and admin tasks on both sides • Frame POs • Web portal

37. Summary • Is this really an innovation? • Reduction: • Costs • TTM • Maximized efficiencies • Increased quality • Enhanced vendor bottom line • Partners concentrated on what they do best • Peace of mind • Built single process from different parts