In-house translation – outside the box

Category: in-house translation

  • Ten pointers for ensuring that translation isn’t an afterthought

    Ten pointers for ensuring that translation isn’t an afterthought

    This post draws closely on a topic that I addressed in my presentation to the ASTTI Financial Translation Summer Conference in Spiez in July 2026.

    From my experience, “translation as an afterthought” is often due to historic workflows. Previously, external translators were only involved when an entire publication had already been finalised to reduce perceived costs (e.g. by reducing the need to retranslate chapters or articles). Where multiple language versions are required, translation is a central part of the publication process. As a freelancer, one customer used my English translation as a “pivot” for subsequent translations. It was due to having separate marketing divisions in various country entities and a lack of DE>XX translators.

    For one sales-related document, I even had to produce two versions: one that was the translation of the German and then a marked-up version to highlight areas that might potentially change in certain local markets (e.g. one market only sold two out of the three product groups (it didn’t sell a legacy product group due to all systems using the other product groups).

    I have translated a lot of publications in-house. In some cases, I translated a finished publication. The translation need/requirement had only been identified after publication of the German version. In many cases, however, I have ensured that I have been involved from early on in the production process. The reasons aren’t just about reducing the lag between the publication in German and the English translation. However, it is still not an automatic process to involve translators from the outset. Involving a translator at a kick-off meeting can really help smooth the production process. I’ve tried to compile a list of points for translators to address at such meetings.

    Points for translators to raise at kick-off meetings

    There are two possibilities for the translation output: either the translation is intended to more or less exactly reproduce the original, or it will be more of a transcreation for a specific target market. Identifying the need at the outset can massively steer the whole translation / transcreation process (and may also impact the timeline considerably). And if you are the representative of all the translators being used, make sure all others receive this information – and they in turn are ready and in place, rather than a downstream afterthought once the “lead” translation has been (nearly) completed.

    Who does what and where…

    1. Define your role exactly. Set out your stall and state who you will need access to. Some translators will deliver in specific formats, but you shouldn’t be expected to also handle layout issues unless you offer this. In the era of hybridisation, layout as a value-added skill is a genuine consideration. But doing this needs you to be at the top of your game with the software used. Gradually learning on the job is not an option (due to substantial outlay for training and software licence costs). Ensure that you have a named contact for the publication, who handles timings and deadlines.
    2. Determine whether it is a new publication or a new edition of an existing publication: where a translation of the previous version exists, request an opportunity to review it. Make sure you do so with the authors (as a minimum review the parts being retained in the new version). This is particularly important if the original authors are no longer involved.
    3. Define where the publication is centrally stored: most translators have tales of woe about the e-mail of the “final final final version” of an attachment that they missed. Or a tale about the mail that didn’t get passed on as the colleague was on holiday or ill. Having files stored centrally, with mail alerts that new versions have been added can eliminate “Outlook risk” (other mail programmes also exist…) If you work with external translators in specific language combinations, make sure they can access centrally stored files and resources.

    Timing and terminology for translation

    1. Define the timelines, and ensure that translation is a central part of them: determine when texts will be stable enough for translation. In addition set hard deadlines after which no changes will be accepted. Also check what level of involvement you are expected to have at editorial meetings (try to ensure your involvement where needed, but not attending for longer than is necessary). Ensure that you are also involved in the design timeline (especially for graphic-intensive publications. Using versioning of chapters can prove very useful – e.g. translation only starts after stable version 2, rather than with the first version of a chapter. Make sure that you educate the publication team about available translation capacity, about the risks associated with shortcuts (e.g. a chapter being submitted late with an attached Machine Translation for revision). Impress upon them the need to ensure document coherency.
    2. Agree on the terminology to be used (and avoided): historic publications may contain the wrong terminology – especially if there have been changes made in the primary and secondary legislative texts. Terminology should not just be a translation issue, but also apply to the original version. When agreeing on terminology to use in translation, use a block list approach (i.e. terms that are not to be used) to avoid using incorrect terminology. Many terminology tools allow the CAT tool to perform QA routines to flag incorrect terminology.
    3. Clarify what available resources can be used: bilingual authoritative texts of EU Directives and Regulations may be used for terminology work, or alignments of specific parts that are due to appear verbatim from them. If the initial version has been written by translating the original authoritative English version of a source text, ensure that the English is available. All sources quoted in footnotes and possibly paraphrased should be stored centrally in their original form – especially resources available online that my not be online permanently (e.g. texts from ministry websites that are prone to archive older content).

    Handling headings, graphics and footnotes

    1. Agree on how to handle figures, charts, tables, boxes and footnotes. They can often take up more time than expected – especially if inserted in non-editable formats. In a number of iterative publications (i.e. annual reports where some parts remain widely similar from one year to another), by the second time round, I ensure that figures are translated when the German version is produced. I work directly with the analyst drawing up the data.
    2. Establish rules for lengths of headings, sections, character counts of individual parts. This can be particularly important when the publication is going to be laid out (e.g. in InDesign). I often do a final check of the proofs, and may amend text lengths to remove unfortunate run-ons and orphan lines. In the event that there is a difference in “language length” e.g.. German is typically longer than English, make sure you have agreements for covering length issues.
    3. Handling non-roman alphabet languages and right-to-left languages. If you have to deal with non-roman alphabet languages or right-to-left languages, you may have additional challenges regarding layout work, and graphical elements. Ensure that set aside additional time for layout work in these languages, and that your layouter(s) are familiar with special requirements (see point 4).

    And when all is said and done, and the project completed…

    1. Have a brief debrief – possibly in the form of a SMART retro: even if everything goes to plan, you will still always find potential ways to improve the process.

    Metrics for in-house language services to consider

    • Timely involvement of internal translators?
    • Were NDAs already in place with any external translators used?
    • Could all translations be delivered on time? (Realistic expectations?)
    • Were problems identified in any language combination?
    • Can new templates be created for reuse in future procedures?
    • How much time was spent clarifying issues rather than translating?
    • What resources (e.g. specific legislation, terminology etc.) should be proactively prepared for future use?

    If you work with freelancers, make sure you get their feedback too, invite their comments on:

    • Was the project scope clear from the start? (Files complete, terminology provided, expectations aligned, no hidden tasks.)
    • How much time was spent on translation vs. clarifications vs. admin? (A strong indicator of profitability and whether the client provides usable input.)
    • Were deadlines realistic and met without overtime? (Helps assess planning accuracy and client reliability.)
    • Were there terminology or subject-matter challenges that slowed the process? (Useful for identifying training needs or deciding whether to specialize further.)
    • Did communication with the client support or hinder progress? (Response times, clarity, availability for questions.)
    • What reusable assets can be created or improved? (Glossaries, TMs, templates, style guides i.e. future time-savers.)
    • Were administrative elements smooth? (Contracts/NDAs ready, invoicing straightforward, payment on time.)

    These last points can be particularly useful for escaping a “we’ve always done it this way” approach. I’m very aware that you can become operationally blinkered if it is a case of “the same procedure as every year!” A retro for the freelancers you work with can be particularly useful if you are looking to build up steady working relationships with them. I have deliberately couched the questions for freelancers in a way to identify shortcomings in the internal process that we might have overlooked.

  • Cutting edge tools x Translators

    Cutting edge tools x Translators

    On International Translators Day on 30th September, I had a very brief cameo role on a video. I joined colleagues from the European Central Bank’s DG Translation, central banks, and supervisory authorities for a special purpose. The video was used to launch the Languages at the European Central Bank LinkedIn page.

    September has quite a tools focus for me: many translation events have a focus on the use of tools. Given the relevance of tools in assisting human translators, the subject is frequently on the agenda.

    At the start of September I presented at the XXIII FIT World Congress in Geneva – on the need for professional translators to remain “Experts in the Lead” in the human-machine translation era.

    I also joined a panel at the European Language Data Space country workshop for Austria here in Vienna to weigh up the pros and cons. My view related to the use of language data in public administration.

    In late September I attended the European Trados User Group conference: ETUG 2025. The event takes place every other year and is intended for power users of RWS Trados products. The write-up of the conference is available on the ETUG website here.

    I presented a summary of Trados use cases presented at ETUG 2025 to the ECCO Working Group on Translation & Production. Their meeting focused on translation technology. I have been the FMA member of ECCO WG T&P since 2014 and attend remotely.

  • Outcome-based returns of human translation

    Outcome-based returns of human translation

    In my XITL presentations and discussions in recent months, I have frequently mentioned outcome-based translation. I use it to highlight why human translation is necessary. Frequently, I receive the argument “machine translation can deliver that in x seconds/minutes)”. A human translation of the same text might take hours/days.

    However, this is due to their “one size fits all” consideration of translation. As its purpose or outcome becomes clear, investing (not spending!) time on human translation is the cheaper option.

    Human translation vastly outstrips MT in terms of accountability, credibility and expertise. However, by only being reported on the expenses side of the balance sheet, the return on human translation is missed.

    How human translation beats MT.

    Here’s an example about something I encountered recently. I received an Excel table with raw MT titles of around 100 processes, each using an abbreviated name, grouped thematically. The table had been provided in German. We were informed about processes for review from the English raw MT. The raw MT had been used for that judgement call. It identified 50+ processes to examine more closely.

    We also benefitted from the synergy of my also being a process controller. This role helps me to keep abreast of changes in underlying supervisory law for banking supervision. In turn, I can determine future translation needs (e.g. for templates related to processes for reporting to the ECB). I know our processes inside out. My colleague asked me to review the list of processes, triggering my concerns about the MT output. We both believed it had misled her counterpart.

    To illustrate my concern, I cited five examples from the first block of ten processes. In all cases the MT was far enough removed to influence the request. My colleague checked with her line manager, who confirmed that I should deliver a human translated version of the table.

    While a machine translation might be ready in x seconds or minutes, sometimes the same translation, done by a professional translator in a number of hours, might lead to an outcome that results in days being saved downstream.

    What the translator did

    I compiled the Excel table to translate – due to my translation memory the 800 words took about 90 minutes. I made sure I delivered that day as I was off the following day. Once back in the office, the response was there. The number of processes highlighted had fallen from nearly 50 to around 35.

    Given that I knew what the processes achieve, I ensured in translating their titles that their context was clearer than a “word shifting” raw MT. The raw MT works at segment level only. It also only identified the combination as German > English (probably instructed). I realised that it was in fact Austrian Legal German into English.

    The positive outcome

    We managed to ensure the removal of fifteen processes from the scope for closer examination. We provided extra context on two newly identified processes, leading to their subsequent removal from the list.

    Investing three hours of time (including checking the rationale behind the processes) saved a considerable number of hours (e.g. 15 minutes / process for coordination our side, one hour / process for drafting time for the process owner in explaining the process based on questions asked, and hours of meetings involving multiple staff members). The impact in terms of reduction in unnecessary translation was around 1,500 – 2,000 Normzeilen.

    Unfortunately, other than illustrating the “Raw MT” near miss there is often not comeback on the effects of downstream expenses – unless there is resulting litigation. MT is therefore not held to account in the same way as human translation.

    Further examples of outcome-based translation jobs (non-exhaustive list)

    1. Translation of primary and secondary legislation with quality assurance by subject matter experts. The translations are subsequently used by scores of colleagues in ongoing supervision. These translations are used to confirm that EU Regulations and Directives have been duly transposed into Austrian national legislation.
    2. Translations that permit the opening of court proceedings in relation to supervisory procedures or the timely conclusion of supervisory procedures in relation to supervised entities.
    3. Notifications of supervisory measures taken, including those requiring notification to the European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA).
    4. Translations of documents that are reused on many occasions.
    5. Translations that assist the correct filling of forms and tables. Explanations help supervised entities to correctly notify the supervisor.

  • 7 thoughts on the challenges facing in-house translators

    7 thoughts on the challenges facing in-house translators

    At the start of this week, I attended an event organised for in-house translators by Universitas. I was part of a small and eclectic group, meeting at the end of the working day. From a very interesting and relaxed couple of hours talking with the others in the group a number of things sprung to mine, which I addressed the following day on LinkedIn.

    1. There is no “one-size-fits-all” in-house role. Expectations on in-house translators vary dramatically: from subject matter specialists through to multi-language pair generalists. There is no hard and fast rule about work in a single language pair or multiple pairs. Even classical “Translator” positions may involve a mixture of translation and other activities. For applicants for such positions, it is advisable at interview to ask about the likely expected hours dedicated to translation.
    2. Job descriptions for open vacancies are seldom as straightforward as “Translator (m/f/d)”. Translation is frequently only a part of the job description, and the job title is seldom for only a translator. In language career portals in the German-speaking world (e.g. Stepstone, Kununu or Karriere.at) most hits for the skill “Übersetzung” talk about it figuratively.
      For example a recent job advert for Österreichische Post AG for an Expert in Controlling Insights mentioned “Du fungierst als “Dolmetscher” zwischen Fachbereich und Programmierer und bist zuständig für die Übersetzung der Anforderungen des Fachbereichs in detaillierte Vorgaben und Zielsetzungen für technische Umsetzung.” In other words – nothing to do with translation or interpreting! In other cases it might be disguised in a job description for a “zweisprachige Schreibkraft” or “Kommunikationstalent”. This latter role is closer to transcreation than translation. Here are some common language-based job titles.
    3. The burgeoning TechStack: among the group around the table, the tools used, and expectations regarding such tool use was varied. There were also varying views about the expectations regarding the use of GenAI/LLMs. Some are very open to the possibilities, while others actively decline to use such tools, or are not permitted to do so.
      Often required training regarding GenAI/LLMs is not specifically tailored to translators. Similarly, the effective use of such tools for translators is not as clear cut as the hype makes out. Deployment of new tools is often IT-led. This approach sometimes overlooks those with genuine expertise to really use them and assess the quality of their output.

    Resource issues

    1. Double-hatting is common: some translators also work as interpreters, rather than having separate translation and interpreting personnel. Others in-housers are only part-time in-house, so have to juggle self-employment alongside their fixed employment.
      This naturally places additional demands on them in terms of time management and also how to organise their time effectively. Teleworking may have cut out some unnecessary miles/kilometers, but there is still a lot of juggling required with multiple positions.
    2. Working for a demanding customer base with dwindling human translation capacity: this can become even more difficult if language services are overseen by non-linguists. This can make it more difficult to discuss the need for quality that goes beyond “good enough”, and where “fit for purpose” is a minimum requirement.
      It can be difficult to get past only being viewed as a cost centre. Translation can be quantified easily in terms of cost, but its impact on sales etc. is more difficult to quantify. Tighter budgets mean fewer retiring colleagues are replaced, or FTEs are replaced by fractional headcount. Alternatively FTEs might only have a certain percentage of their time devoted to translation.
    3. Decreased job security: even in public administration there are perceptions that the job security of translators is lower than it used to be. The erosion of the classical triple constraint, the rise of “good enough”, and the improved “linguistic fitness” of many white collar colleagues has affected demand for translators.
      Job mobility and exchange programmes while studying mean that many colleagues are more confident in their language abilities that only a few years ago. However, there is still a subjective basis to their assessment of their own language abilities. Just as having two hands and a piano does not make me a concert pianist, working knowledge of two languages, does not automatically transfer into being able to write well in your target language.
    4. Rising expectations in terms of output: while tools like CAT and (N)MT have helped to increase translator productivity, there is still the unrealistic expectation in light of the promises of “instant translation” offered by browser-based tools.
      Translators’ potential output can really depend on so many factors – NMT/GenAI/LLMs are “confidently wrong” – they will always offer a translation, whereas the “cautiously correct” human translator reverts to the author if unsure – to clear up potential source or target text ambiguities.
      Similarly, expectations vary wildly based on the percentage of time spent on translation compared to non-translation activities. Often there is no dedicated capacity for terminology work. Only larger language units have dedicated terminologists: without them, it is often widely neglected. With the advent of MT/GenAI and the Terminology Augmented Generation approach, which is used to import your terminology into the LLM, it is likely to gain in importance.

    Are you interested in events like this? Universitas holds regular events throughout the year. Check out the Universitas website for more information – if you are not yet a member, some events are open to guests. If you are interested in knowing more about what I do, then why not join the Universitas Berufsbilder webinar on 23 October 2025, which will focus on the role of project management and process management.