I recently completed a questionnaire for benchmarking purposes regarding a potential reorganisation of a multi-person language services unit. The wording hinted at a fundamental re-evaluation of the role of human translation in a specific institutional setting. There were a mixture of qualitative and quantitative questions. Quantitative questions sought to benchmark the language service in question’s productivity against that of its peers. They highlight output, but do not necessarily measure the qualitative nature of the translation.
This ties in with a theory discussed in Sam Illingworth’s “Slow AI” (part of my Summer 2026 Reading List). Output devoid of an outcome is a constituent part of slop. A couple of years ago, I started actively questioning the necessity of specific translations as an outcome. This was partially due to a takeaway that I didn’t need to do so much of the mundane grunt work. It made more sense to deploy me on high stakes jobs, and where the output was reusable rather than single-use. It was a way to critically assess that I wasn’t translating publications unnecessarily. I also argued that I could use it to prove that I was not artificially busy.
I can always find something that can be translated. It also proved an effective visibility tool. As English versions of publications were released, I began dropping comments on LinkedIn and other channels about English versions of publications. This ensured that English versions of documents were read. In some cases, I used download figures to confirm/question/disprove the need for future translations. Sometimes a translation of the executive summary or localising downloadable data would suffice.
Translators work best when trusted rather than watched.
LinkedIn posts often boast about productivity and output levels – expressed in figures. However, this may be an attempt at validation rather than being a meaningful metric. A trainer decided to recently post how someone who had completed his course wanted to mention the size (in words) of a project on social media. I jumped on the coat tails of an esteemed colleague, who highlighted the importance of outcome rather than output in terms of value.
Initially, when I went in house, I recorded daily/weekly translation volume and jobs. It did serve a purpose, namely to chart peaks and troughs (and help me plan when I go on leave and not return to an overflowing inbox. I no longer log translation output in such detail now, although reports are available “on tap”. In this regular, in my responses to the questionnaire, I mentioned that I comfortably exceeded the initial benchmark (from memory, set at 200 words/hour). Once it was clear that I consistently exceeded the benchmark, I argued to have the benchmark dropped. I argued that the margin by which I exceeded the benchmark and the non-translation tasks I also performed showed the shortcomings of a benchmark based on apparent 100% productivity.
Benchmarks are changing
On the subject of benchmarks, the goalposts have moved: GenAI and MT solutions make claims about high volumes that they are able to process. Human translators are not there for “out and out” high volume translation, but for the translation that affects outcome. Occasionally I will still have 30,000 word items to turn around in 4-5 days. However, mature subject-specific translation memories and terminology databases and MT for pre-translation helps significantly.
My involvement centres around ensuring accountability and consistency. I also become the “Most Critical Reader” who asks the difficult questions to the authors. I query numbers that don’t add up (or become skewed) and question ambiguities of the source text. Increasingly I also condense texts, check their coherence, and ensure that the message gets through.
Suggesting changing benchmarks where necessary
I also recently responded to a Call for Input on a translation rates survey for a translation association. Previous editions of the survey have helped me regarding procurement for working with freelancers. Clarifying rates as “going rates” in a best bidder procedure has been an important step. In preparation for the finalisation of the 2026 iteration of the survey, I also submitted input in light of the changing climate for freelance translators. One fellow member had made a number of very sensible suggestions. My additional suggestions consisted of:
- Have you considered changing tariff models, such as no longer charging by line (Normzeile)?
- How do you bill additional technical services (e.g. extra delivery of bilingual files or alignments)?
- How do you bill for transcreation?
- What proportion of your work comes from direct customers and what proportion from agencies?
- What proportion of jobs can you handle in your preferred CAT tool, and what proportion in a customer-prescribed CAT tool?
When publication is only the cherry on top of the icing on the cake
I recently published a 100,000 word translation of an Austrian law that I had worked on and revised for a number of years. Clearance was ultimately only a formality that had always just slipped through. It could have been published with a disclaimer years ago. However, I used subject matter experts signing off my work to establish dialogue with them. Yes, a six figure word count is still a landmark, in the same way I remember past quantitative landmarks. Amazingly it is over 25 years since I remember receiving payment on my first ATS 50,000 translation job (EUR 3663.64). Other weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual landmarks ensued. And yes, I still remember my first “million word year” with pride and exhaustion.
Usage rather than publication is key
However, personal pride about the recently published translation’s value didn’t stem from clicking upload in our DMS. And it was not about its monetary value at a normal line rate. Pride already existed from knowing the role played in its various iterations over the last decade. It had been in use internally, with periodic legislative amendments, for years. It contributed to outcomes like the orderly exits of failed banks, or in discussions of our Austrian approach in countless European working groups. Finally, it served as the basis for IMF country inspections and exercises evaluating national transposition of the European legal framework.
Ultimately, publication on our website was the transparency cherry on top of the icing on the cake. I still get a buzz when people use my translations. And that is why I had always consciously made working translations available internally to ensure their active and effective use. That also generates critical feedback. A translation’s usefulness is also measurable by the frequency of its usage as a reference work.
There is more to output than just a word count
Word count, along with character count ultimately resonates more of a charging unit of output than as a unit of outcome. Transcreation is a classic example of this. Nina Sattler-Hovdar’s recently published “Transcreation: The all-in-one handbook and workbook” contains a detailed breakdown about pricing aspects. Just to take one mini-example: slogans become part of a brand identity and cannot be priced by word. For every chosen slogan, there will be numerous others suggested and rejected within the project. Royalty-based remuneration is very rare in transcreation (i.e. effectively licensing the use of a slogan for a specified period of time). With translation, the impact may lie in the impact of the brevity of the translation and whether it communicates the desired message – a case of “more is less” and naturally language lengths vary considerably.
And as for those qualitative aspects?
The focus of my presentation in Spiez, and my subsequent blog post, was how translators ensure that they are not only an afterthought. Similarly, when I responded to the questionnaire, I felt it necessary to highlight the value translators bring to an institution. This value increases by involving translators at the core of a publication or procedure, rather than as an afterthought.
Good and useful translation work is not a one-off expense, but is an investment. Sometimes, the return on the investment is not immediate, but accumulates gradually over years – as with my recently published translation. In environments when translation doesn’t convert directly into sales, its qualitative role is in improving or bolstering institutional reputation. At the same time, for the questionnaire, I highlighted about what is lost without having translators. However good the grasp of subject matter experts, they still do not always have the grasp of the language to handle the nuances required, ensuring there is no ambiguity.
I’ve encountered people who claim that AI has helped their (non-native) language skills – however, they are the ones most at risk of deceptive fluency – something that Sam Illingworth calls “superficial competence”. At the same time with GenAI, translators are on the receiving end of what Illingworth describes as “asymmetric effort”. I’ve often referred to it as cognitive downstreaming. In this case, translators take on the role of the most critical reader, if the author and/or their editor abdicates it.