In-house translation – outside the box

Tag: workflows

  • Busting the 100% productivity myth: great(ly exaggerated corporate) expectations

    Busting the 100% productivity myth: great(ly exaggerated corporate) expectations

    A post on LinkedIn recently addressed the issue of expectations for delivery of a translation project. The suggested timeframe provided for a single translator to translate a website of approximately 25,000 words was approximately 1 week. The responses of other linguists generally fell into two distinct camps: firstly, the that’s-no-way-near-enough-time camp, and secondly, the it’s-no-wonder-translators-are-losing-out-to-MT-if-they-are-that-slow camp. Fence-sitters would probably fall into a how-long’s-a-piece-of-string camp – which is a justified argument – as the subject matter was unclear.

    Currently there are more “famine” than “feast” posts from freelancers. (N)MT and LLM-based translation form a two-pronged attack that are affecting human translators. Industry-side evangelisers sometimes claim that MT more content translation than human translators can translate. Even if this is the case, there is still a diminishing wedge for human translators.

    Since 2022, I have regularly seen posts about translators being reduced to post-editors of Machine Translation. The rates do not reflect the true amount of effort required to bring translations up to standard. Which in turn leads to a drop in motivation. It isn’t realistic to expect the same service for a living rate as a dumping rate.

    100% productivity is corporate settings: an illusion

    In the modern data-driven world, we are incredibly IT-dependent. Updates need to be done, and they don’t always happen overnight, during lunchbreaks etc. I’ve previously covered why I schedule my return to work to allow me to start with a home office day: with a “soft logon” the night before. Unless you user blocker appointments, you are bombarded with mails, calls, Teams chats etc. And all this eats into your productivity – particularly if you consider your day like a game of Tetris.

    As I pointed out to one comment about the 25,000 words in a week, which suggested 100% productivity in the corporate world, this is a fallacy. Time and activity tracking frequently sanitises out “Tür-und-Angel-Gespräche” with colleagues, lunchbreaks that overrun, online calls that start and end late. Full calendars are seldom a sign of productivity in their own right. There are also “meetings that could have been a mail” and continuous calls are draining. I now maintain better call discipline – sticking rigidly to the intended call length, and excusing myself from over-running calls.

    Is human productivity the issue?

    Returning to the how-long’s-a-piece-of-string issue, about productivity and its effect on translation output, it is clear that there are unreasonably high expectations on productivity. As a translator, you might have a “straightline top speed”, but for how long can you maintain it for? And does the ride remain comfortable, or do things straight to rattle or get uncomfortable. When I went in house, to try to gauge my output, I set myself an original 1,500 words a notional daily output. A 1,500 word document to translate from scratch can reasonably be expected to be sent back by the end of the day,

    Would I start translating the second I got into the office? Rarely. Unless an item has come in the previous evening and I had set up the project the previous evening. It might be necessary to perform some alignments, concordance-based terminology work, or (re)read the legislation. Sharing an office means inevitable phone calls and distractions. I often work with noise cancelling headphones when the office is fully occupied. When I have a lot of short tasks I use desktop timers to keep moving between the tasks.

    6 out of 8, or 8 out of 10?

    If I am lucky, I get about 6 hours (out of 8 hours) undisturbed translation time a day, and would have to go at a steady 250 words an hour to do 1,500 words in that 6 hours. As translation memories and termbases grew, “plain vanilla” translations became a lot quicker. Filler tasks like translating investment warnings are now practically automated. The translation task mainly involves locking a few segments and a quick check of the output and a bit of formatting.

    Consequently, I have been able to increase my notional daily output to 2,000 words, but the added 500 words a day reflect a number of factors:

    • I do considerably less terminology work. Now it is frequently ad hoc rather than in dedicated terminology sessions.
    • I also have read-only translation memories containing bilingual alignments of European law at my finger tips, allowing me to spend more time in Trados Studio than I previously did.
    • Better screen setup means reference materials open on a second screen, a glance away.
    • I have a very narrow subject focus – at its broadest, my subject matter is financial market supervision, but predominantly focussed on banking supervision. There are very few supervisory procedures that are genuinely new. I have occasional forays into insurance and Pensionskassen supervision, securities supervision or banking resolution.
    • Regular expressions for QA have helped reduce cognitive (over)load.

    Despite such “efficiency” improvements, achieving 8 hours’ pure translation productivity still requires working for over eight hours. Changes in daylight conditions also need considering. However, mature TMs also have drawbacks – which is why I have looked into better use of segment penalties, and terminology can also change over the years.

    Barnes’ Iron Triangle applied to translation

    As I alluded to in a previous post about imposter syndrome affecting translators – and how I banished my early career doubts, unrealistic expectations from customers are a genuine problem. For translation, the holy trinity of specifications consist of price, quality and time.

    triangle showing quality, price and time, to illustrate Barnes' Iron Triangle.

    Explained simply, it goes like this. You want a high quality translation? You’ll either have to pay a premium rate (i.e. price is high), or allow more time for the translation. You want a quick translation? You’ll either have to pay a premium rate (i.e. price is high due to needing translators to work extra hours, or in a team) or sacrifice quality. You want a cheap translation? You either sacrifice quality (e.g. review processes, terminology checks, coherence checks) or have to wait on delivery.

    The AI hype and the genuine advances in machine translation have pitted the industry against the professionals. There is a different playing field in the age of NMT and generative AI. There has certainly been a big leap since statistic MT was in its heyday. You have to therefore manage your customer’s expectations (explain what you do – e.g. explain that you use CAT and not (N)MT), and what the expected delivery time is.

    Managing expectations.

    I’ve always believed in expectation management (a skill you learn as a parent). Back in 2016, along with recurring daily work, we had most substantial relaunch of my employer’s website to date. Eight years on, there are still regularly new pages and posts, and the workflow has proven itself. I had to work to a fixed deadline for go live, at the end of an intense month (including work trips to London, Zagreb and Nuremberg).

    The project allowed me to also educate colleagues/customers about realistic expectations, while also changing the translation workflow for publishing directly to the website. Now, with backend CMS access. I extract texts from the source view in the CMS and open the files in Trados Studio. I could translate pages as they successively went live in the testing environment. That approach eliminated dealing with multiple versions of the same page or post as Word files. Agreeing on a top-down approach allows prioritisation of certain content for translation. This ensured handling top level content child pages/posts first, and steadily working through subpages.

    For multi-day projects, I explain how to involve me before a final version of the document exists. This approach is particularly useful for multiple iterations of a text. It also helps to allow more translation time – PerfectMatch helps to overcome document iteration issues. Naturally, I do also make sure that I allow a slight buffer, and early delivery is easier than having tight deadlines.

    Ultimately good customer communication is key – keep they updated about progress – maybe check in with them partway through the project – possibly the earlier the better. Try to group questions about terminology or wording suggestions together rather than a constant trickle of questions.

  • Even Homer Nods! How Chinese Walls showed it was good to talk

    Even Homer Nods! How Chinese Walls showed it was good to talk

    One downside to being the only linguist in your setting and with the knock-on of limited exposure to your target language is a lack of opportunities to discuss intricacies of usage. This issue can of course lead to an inadvertent usage, or use of a non-inclusive term. The scenario was this: I was engaging on a post on LinkedIn about why it is good for translators to be able to talk to one another in projects where multiple translators work on the project.

    The isolation as a translator means that you can often become blinkered in your vision (and thinking!). As wonderful as stable customers are – and they are increasingly rare in the cut-throat “first-finger-first” world of getting translation work. Established translators have interesting ideas: translation slams, retreats, networking events and the like. All aimed at talking. Collaboration can be a very rewarding experience – this is why I appreciate the opportunity of reviewing EBA Guidelines – I get to ask questions, look at the translation through a different prism or lens.

    Regarding collaboration and communication in the post in question, my well-intentioned comment was:

    […] collaboration thrives on direct communication between translators – sometimes agencies throw up unnecessary Chinese walls between translators working on the same project (I remember once working on a large project where we were all only allowed to “chat” through a moderated anonymous portal – such was the fear of the agency that we might build a team that would compete against the agency we were working for!) In another crazy situation years ago, where a large project was carved up between two agencies, I discovered that I was providing terminology support for the same project I was translating part of for the other agency.

    Bang. And then it was. A careless choice of words, although one I knew from a professional context.

    Even Homer Nods…

    The poster responded by pointing out that “Chinese walls” was an outdated and offensive term for some. I chose to own my mistake, accepted their insight and replied that I would refrain from using it in the future. A hollow promise? No. I immediately acted on it. How did I act?

    1. I immediately accepted the mistake – and said that I would refrain for using it in the future. With reflection, and hindsight too, I realise that the analogy is also incorrect/lazy – both in terms of my usage and in a financial context. The Great Wall of China (and walled cities throughout history) served for protecting territory, but not to prevent citizens from leaving. Suitably chastened, the next goal was to find a more accurate term for the required context.
    2. I asked the original poster whether they can suggest “a suitable, succinct and more inclusive replacement for its use in the sense of “a barrier to avoid potential conflicts of interest” e.g. between advisory and trading divisions (as used in investment banking)?” The OP promptly offered terms like “firewall” and “screen”. My own research also yielded “ethics walls” and “ethical walls” – as mentioned by Judge Low in Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988). Low’s suggestion also works particularly well for preserving the concept of “hiring over the wall”. This is an internal staffing move of hiring someone from the other side of the ethics wall.
    3. I amended the terminology entry for Chinese wall(s) in my MultiTerm termbases. It now appears as non-inclusive (an additional field at term level used in conjunction with a QA tool for inclusive language). This means that in the event of any German term translated as “Chinese wall(s)”, I receive a warning that the term is to be avoided, to allow me to then correct it as I go. This is particularly useful in terms of fuzzy matches. In addition I have a MultiTerm export routine that allows an export of non-inclusive terms. Its purpose is to increase awareness by circulating this list regularly, to help non-L1-colleagues.
    4. Checking existing usage in publications. For the website, I ran a google search for site:fma.gv.at “Chinese wall”. Hits appeared mainly in downloads from external sources, or from historic documents – on both the German and English versions of the site. These I can’t change, because they are the words of other stakeholders. When we used SiteImprove, I used reports (e.g. about the use of Chinese *AND* wall). Using reports in SiteImprove frequently identified obsolete terminology for correcting it. I contended with a lot of “inherited” translations from numerous translation sources, prior to becoming our English web editor. I discussed any mentions found in the German version with post/page authors.
    5. Checking existing usage in translation memories. I check both the source and target texts of segments for usage of “Chinese wall(s)” and how it was translated. For example, the English source spoke of “Chinese walls” but the German target spoke of “Informationssperren (sog. “Chinese walls”)” In some cases, I remove the translation unit from the Translation Memory. In other cases I add a quality penalty (I use a numerical quality field from aligned texts that I used to build up my initial translation memories, based on their quality (e.g. 95-100 for aligned texts of legal acts from Eur-Lex (with penalties for age), 85-90 for aligned texts of publications where the emphasis of the translation was not such a strict word-for-word rendering, (with penalties for age)). I delete translation units “past their sell by date”. (I’ll deal with TM housekeeping in a future post).

    However, I didn’t beat myself up over it. Instead, I used it as a way to test my processes and workflows, which work well. I also used it as a way to think of several initiatives for informal networking events to could draw positively from the experience. And I took it on board as a shortcoming of living outside of my L1-target language culture. All of which show the importance of collaboration and talking.

    It’s Good to Talk…

    Reverting to the original post that I commented on, I remarked about my first physical meeting of my Working Group in Athens after the pandemic that “It’s good to talk!” In this regard as a lone in-house existence is similar to that of many freelancers in that it is a relatively isolated one. However, only if I choose it to be. This is why I try to exploit opportunities to talk to my colleagues in my department about their policy areas. This is how I remain alert to new policy information, legal acts, soft law instruments, issues encountered in operative supervision. These are important for my improved understanding of operative banking supervision.

    Some pearls of wisdom yield new aligned texts (e.g. new guidance on aspects of banking supervision). Part of my non-translation remit is also keeping a watchful eye over our banking supervision processes. This is a quality assurance and quality management process, and provides useful insights for translation purposes about legal developments. Translators talking and collaborating helps them to discover new opportunities, gather different perspectives and bounce different approaches off one another.

    When I outsource a piece to someone, I believe they should receive as much information as necessary. I believe in being approachable where they have questions and to discuss terminology issues. Otherwise I ensure that they can directly access the author of the piece to translate. After all the author knows best what they mean to say. In my response about translators being able to communicate, even someone pointing out my error confirms the value of communication.

    The final word…

    Dialogue is a two-way street – the more you give/contribute, the more your receive. In addition, this episode resulted in connecting with the OP, whose content I have read for a number of months, coming up with a creative idea for the future, and a blog post.