In-house translation – outside the box

Tag: jobcrafting

  • Who’s in/on the lead as we head into 2024?

    Who’s in/on the lead as we head into 2024?

    The debate about the future of (human) translation and changing role of translators is the biggest topic in translator circles. 2023 has been the year of the (unstoppable?) march of machine translation. Within a year of bursting onto the scene as an unknown, OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, can apparently also translate. Human translators increasingly face tighter, more competitive markets. Many are not even consulted about their replacement by MT solutions, but maybe grudgingly offered PEMT work. And there are talks of tightened budgets and gloomy outlooks of recession. So are the days of out-and-out translators numbered?

    The Chartered Institute of Linguists, which I recently joined, has released a white paper: CIOL Voices on AI and Translation. It addresses some initial reflection and major concerns. The White Paper points to a shift in professions: today’s professional translators will be the future’s language experts and consultants. Sometime new job titles are dismissed as a case of “old grapes in new bottles”?

    The introduction to the White Paper concludes:

    […} we can ensure that linguists remain at the forefront of AI integration in our field – the essential expert ‘humans in the loop’.

    Steve Doswell, Linguist, consultant and Chair of CIOL Council in CIOL Voices on AI and Translation

    The use of “expert ‘humans in the loop’” is telling here. Without attaching the “expert”, it implies that an involved human may not be an linguistic expert. This ties in with concerns about the need for human judgement in using MT and LLMs for translation. It remains essential that users clearly understand their responsibility, as well as the pitfalls of using unsupervised MT. In-house language units must have an active role in training and onboarding users. Their involvement in the decision-making regarding the adoption of such approaches remains essential. It is not an out-and-out IT decision – even if the technological nature of the solution, means IT must be on board. There is some very sensitive messaging in moving from a “human translation” approach to “human in the loop” if bypassing the intermediate “machine in the loop” stage.

    Potential for upskilling and job crafting

    This presents possibilities for upskilling and job crafting – both useful tools for in-house staff retention. New remits might help retain senior staff members wishing to have a change from day-in-day-out translation. Any in-house solution will need dedicated language technologists. Language technologists are the new translators in terms of language services recruitments. Central banks and financial market supervision authorities have been hiring people with this profile for several years.

    It is also important to remember that for any solution to work to its full potential, will need dedicated staff. The quick and dirty approach might be to outsource, but such solutions, although quicker to implement, may not allow the desired level of control. An attractive interface is one thing, but there might not be the possibility to tweak the temperature of the underlying model, or to train it to your specifications – which is beneficial to extract the maximum benefit for your use case. However, this training isn’t possible on the fly – it needs a long-term training concept and commitment. And naturally potential succession management issues need handling too. These issues may be due to sabbaticals, secondments, retirements and maternity leave. Entrusting an entire solution on a single set of shoulders is also an operational risk.

    In this case, human involvement is still in more of an expert capacity – training and refining the engine, and ironing out the wrinkles. (Rinse and repeat as required!) Other tasks include managing new versions of software and interfaces, or plugins to CAT environments and maintenance. With an outsourced solution the situation is not so clear cut. This brings us back to the issue of the position of the human expert in the loop – and whether human or machine is subordinate – in the translation process as a whole, and the problems with the terms used.

    Driven loopy – the expert/machine/human in the loop/lead.

    I first heard of “human in the loop” mentioned at the 2021 edition of the Translating Europe Forum (TEF). TEF is the European Commission’s annual translation *industry* event. Over the last two years, I have lost count of the amount of discussions I have had with other people, about it. The problem it throws up lies in the interpretation of the role of the human.

    Moving further back, human-in-the-loop in 2012 was a classification for autonomous weapons systems. In that context, a human must instigate the action of the weapon. Human-on-the-loop is a classification whereby a human may abort an action. Lastly, and most terrifyingly, human-out-of-the-loop is the classification for no human action is involved. In this case human-in-the-loop does not imply that the human is subordinate to the machine.

    An intermediate stage exists between human translation and human in the loop: “machine in the loop“. In that case the machine is subordinate to the human, or more likely an expert. Both “machine in the loop” and “human in the loop” are weasly terms. Both fail to mention the role of human expertise – which is why some prefer “human at the core” or “human in the lead“. Additionally, one experienced colleague recently pointed out on LinkedIn that anything “human” omits to say anything about their expertise. This is why I actively try to opt for “expert in the lead” (should that maybe be EITL or XITL?).

    There can be a lot of difficulties in explaining the delicacy of the situation to lay colleagues – they see a binary situation: human translation or machine translation.

    After all, If you are not in the lead, but only in the loop, then you are effectively “on the lead”. And naturally there is the issue of the subsequent drift from human in the loop to human on/out of the loop. In that situation, we’re in the territory of fully autonomous self-driving vehicles.

    Resistance is futile?

    AI technology is clearly here to stay. While there is a certain hype cycle, it is not just a passing fad. The truth is that its limitations are well recognised: AI/MT cannot be used unsupervised in many settings. There are possibilities that the enhanced use of technological assistance might also open up new seams for translation (MT is a suitable use case for e.g., translating Airbnb and travel site reviews where a gist translation is what is needed). Humans will remain an integral part for training the underlying systems. Otherwise, at some point there will only be synthetic data to train systems that require high quality human data for training. Increased efficiency needs to be offset against the lack of job satisfaction that some will experience from being relegated to post-editing.

    Resistance to the advancing AI/MT tide is futile – both in-house and as freelancers. The battle to fight is in educating and countering assumptions that the lay public holds of machines being better, faster and cheaper. People need to understand the real risks and costs. However, part of this battle will also be to ensure that the current cohort of translators/language consultants/language technologists in the making learn the skills they will need for the career of the future. Many university courses adapt to the changing times at a pace observed in glacial creep. This is where professional associations come in – both in upskilling existing linguists, but also in supporting the next generation as it begins its journey.

  • Not just a one-trick pony – How job crafting works

    Not just a one-trick pony – How job crafting works

    When you say that you are an in-house translator, it seems like a conversation stopper. Seemingly, everyone assumes they know exactly what you do for your entire working week. People’s perception of your activities are that you are a “one-trick pony”. However, the fact is that many in-house translator jobs are not full-time translation positions. Fortuitously, this provides such translators with a possibility for “job crafting” a blend of translation-based and non-translation-based activities into their working hours.

    To the uninitiated, an in-house translator sits or stands at their desk (hurray for the modern workplace!) and translates documents all day/week/year long, with revision and terminology tasks along the way. But even for someone with a job title as simple as “translator”, there are other tasks to perform, and a degree of wiggle room for “job crafting”, even as a SPLSU.

    From my in-house experience, demand for translation has always depended on proximity and visibility to colleagues in active supervision. Whereas freelancers market themselves and dedicate time to marketing (as shown frequently in the #litranslators community on LinkedIn), physical presence has been an essential factor for me – the need to be seen.

    With the disruption from the pandemic and the advent of “new work” with versatile and flexible working arrangements, the tasks picked up through job crafting have helped to reinforce my presence. This has proven particularly important as I don’t necessarily see my colleagues in person, even though I share an open plan shared office. And “cold calling” colleagues over MS Teams is not an option for translation marketing in the in-house setting.

    Seize the day! Subconscious marketing works.

    Fortunately, there are a lot of “recurring” jobs that allow a gentle trickle of osmosis marketing opportunities to colleagues. Intriguingly, the example below proves how the actual translation job that triggers the marketing doesn’t need to be massive. Take a recent case in hand. There was a micro-sized amendment to the Austrian Banking Act (BWG; Bankwesengesetz). We’re talking about a law that affects everyone in Banking Supervision at my employer.

    The amendment in question in translation terms was at most a 10-15 minute job (with most of that time spent generating the 250 page accessible PDF file in Word4Axes), and consisted of:

    • the appending of a single point/subparagraph at the end of a single Article in the BWG,
    • an inserted reference to the transposition of a single point in an EU Regulation into Austrian law, and
    • the insertion of a single sentence stating when this amendment would enter into force.

    Of course, I didn’t draw attention to the size of the amendment addressed, or that it only becomes relevant from the start of 2024. The mail that went out told a story that I could use to connect with colleagues, and I told them:

    The English translation of the Austrian Banking Act has been updated to include the latest amendments. The full translation can be downloaded directly at …

    All English language versions of supervisory laws, as available, can be downloaded from the website from the page …

    Extract of a mail to colleagues

    Tell me you are looking for translation work, without saying you are looking for translation work.

    That simple two sentence mail connected me with 100+ colleagues. It reminded them that I was potentially available for their translation needs, without saying I am looking for work. The mail flicked the thought switch about translation needs: two pages for one colleague here, one from another there. Checking presentation slides from a third, gist translation of a draft amendment to another law for a fourth. It also planted seeds in colleagues’ minds. Do I translate secondary legislation? Is there a working translation of some frequently cited provisions of the Commercial Code (GewO; Gewerbeordnung)? The list goes on.

    This is what a simple e-mail in the depths of the traditional “Sommerloch” can achieve. Its impact means that I am aware that I have to be careful not to get the timing “too right”. Especially as the mail also triggered some enquiries about whether I have time next month for a couple of jobs.

    Seeing the bigger picture: job crafting

    two women in front of dry erase board
    Photo by Christina Morillo on Pexels.com

    My job crafting also focuses on “seeing the bigger picture”. Part of this revolves around ensuring that translation is not only an afterthought in colleagues’ perceptions. By teasing out a number of non-translation tasks over the years, I have found ways to ensure a steady interaction with colleagues. In turn, this also helps to ensure a constant flow of translation work.

    Leveraging a few (relatively) small, but nevertheless important, non-translation-based tasks ensures a strong flow of translation. These tasks include:

    • Content and document management for our website and departmental Intranet.
    • Accessibility (Barrierefreiheit) for web content and publications in both German and English
    • Handling the public consultation of national soft law instruments
    • Handling the comply/explain process for EBA soft law instruments
    • Coordinating periodic reviews of internal banking supervision processes
    • Monitoring of covered bond issuances under the new Pfandbrief Act
    • Member of the Sounding Board of a subproject in my employer’s digital transformation programme.

    Tranlation expertise regarding workflows and processes flows into many of these tasks. A number of them also have synergy effects in relation to my translation work. By handling monitoring tasks, it gives me access to policy experts, who provide me with follow-up translation work. Other monitoring activities allow me to talk to colleagues, in particular recent arrivals, who become translation customers. In turn, I can approach them about meanings and interpretations of tricky concepts.

    Keeping a watchful eye over a list of standardised processes provides me with an opportunity to contact colleagues. In turn it helps to ensure a steady flow of translation work, Experience from translation workflows proves useful in understanding the interfaces between banking supervision processes. Similarly, it also helps in understanding how they shape content updates to our website.

    So how does job crafting work in practice?

    brown fedora hat in selective focus photography - illustration of multi-hatting which is part of job crafting
    Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

    Much of the synergies revolve around multi-hatting – dealing with colleagues in a number of capacities.

    Take this anonymised example about how I multi-hat, The points below are not in strict chronological order (e.g. Guidelines may already have entered into force, while the national transposition is still delayed…)

    1. A proposal from the European Commission focussing on an amendment to a Regulation of relevance for a specific topic within banking supervision pops up. The policy expert has a couple of days to respond with comments and suggestions in English. They request that I carry out a quick language check for their submission about the proposal. (translator/reviewer hat).
    2. After many rounds the proposal eventually clears Parliament and is duly published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Member States start transposition into national law. Once the national legislation is enacted, I translate the amendment (translator hat)
    3. EBA draws up Guidelines about a specific aspect of the Regulation (and by extension its transposition into national law). I check the German translator with the policy experts (reviewer and national editor hat). Once the Guidelines are published into all languages, I set up the comply/explain process for the policy expert to then appraise. (compliance monitoring hat)
    4. New Guidelines often require updates to our national soft law publications, including a public consultation and/or changes to our banking supervision processes (process management/reviewer hat/consultation hat).
    5. Publication and translation of published soft law instrument and assorted changes needed to our website (web editor and translator hat) as well as for accessibility (accessibility hat).

    Three out of the five tasks come about from job crafting, although three tasks also involve me directly based on my “original” role as a translator. In the long-term, it is also possible to ensure that job crafting elements are included in goals and performance metrics for appraisal/review cycles.

    In a larger, i.e. non-SPLSU in-house setting, job crafting can allow team members to focus on the areas they prefer, and to collectively cover more bases. While onlookers continue to see a certain number of full-time equivalent translators, within the team there are a far greater array of specialists.