By Francoise Spurling

Quality in the eyes of the customer

Customers want—and expect—quality. This certainly states the obvious! But probe a little deeper, and you will find that what this really means varies greatly from client to client, and even from project to project with the same client. So why do language service providers define quality the same way for every client?   

As the translation and language service industry has matured, quality management and workflow processes have been developed to ensure client quality. Chief editor roles have been created and editing departments have grown large. LSPs habitually measure quality in the same way for each client. I tend to disagree with this approach. In my view quality should be defined by the customer, not by the LSP.   

The conventional view

Typically language service providers put together a quality management program that includes a standard process and three professionals for each translation. First a top-notch translator is employed for a first draft. Then an editor is used to correct mistakes. Next a reviewer approves the style and technical content. The translator or editor implements the changes and the content is then finalized with page layout and desktop publishing. Quality control is then generally conducted by a native linguist.  

In this view of quality assurance, the role of each team member is carefully defined. The translator must be qualified with relevant experience. The editor is a second linguist who may be better or less qualified than the first translator. The reviewer is a third linguist in the process and is generally a subject specialist. Finally, the quality control role is conducted either by the editor or a fourth linguist.

The process in this conventional approach to quality requires a strong emphasis on editing as a guarantee that the translation is going to be of good quality. But this is a fallacy. All too often the editor lacks the in-depth knowledge, which led the translator to make specific linguistic choices. As a result, errors might be introduced in the translation. Furthermore, with three to four individuals involved in the process, no one can take full ownership of the quality of the final piece. This system is set up to work across-the-board for every client in the same manner.  

New approach to translation quality

Instead of creating a one-size-fits-all quality process, it is important to have a flexible quality program that addresses each client’s uniqueness.     

It does not matter if translated material meets a pre-determined set of quality measures if the client is unhappy with the final piece. Or maybe the piece is factually 100 percent correct, but the quality process made it two days late, and the client had instead measured success on a simple understanding of the text, not a perfect translation. The context surrounding each project varies, and the needs of each client differ greatly, so quality measurement must always start with the client. At the end of each project, LSPs ask three questions to measure the quality of translated content:

• Does the translated content match the end user’s style expectations?    
• Does the translated content reflect the corporate image?
• Is the customer happy with the content?  

To ensure a positive outcome for each of these questions, we develop a flexible quality process for each project that always includes the following ingredients:    

• Good translators  
• Tools and support that translators need
• Appropriate checks and balances in place

Good translators

The first ingredient is self-evident: it’s what comes to mind immediately when judging quality. And the tendency is to blame the translator if the translation is bad. But even the best translators cannot achieve good quality in every circumstance. Working in isolation the best translator in the world may not be able to satisfy the three customer criteria identified above.   

In order to ensure that we provide the best translators possible, we work with our customers to clearly define their end user messages. If this is done upfront, the impact on the quality of the translated product or website will be significant. We also work with our customers to forecast projects well ahead of time to ensure that dedicated translators are booked at an early stage and delivery expectations are met even before projects are started, since good translators are in high demand. More importantly, we also give the translators a lot of responsibility, which increases their investment in each project and, ultimately, improves quality.

Tools

Secondly, we ensure quality by giving translators what they need. Specifically, they require context, reference and knowledge. Translation is not simply a process of word substitution with the application of grammatical rules. If it were, machines would have done the job successfully for a long time and we would not be here today. A translator must understand the source text, digest it and then recreate it in his/her native language. Similarly the translator needs to understand fully in which context the words are being used. That context is provided by the client—it could be the software product in its native language, a marketing brief or another helpful document.

Reference materials help ensure that the translation meets customer expectations—one of the criteria mentioned above. Such materials include previously translated material, existing glossaries, style guides and translation memories.

The final but most important tool for the translator is specialized knowledge. Ideally, translators will communicate directly with the clients, receiving training on products and being able to ask questions. These questions often highlight ambiguities or errors in source materials.

Checks and balances

Finally, it is important to establish proven checks and balances for translated content. These include 1) appointing the right reviewers, 2) managing the reviewers and 3) reviewing test scripts. We provide reviewers with questionnaires to be completed based on the content to be translated and we supply them with clear guidelines on how to check for quality. However, the work we put into finding the best translators possible beforehand means that the reviewer’s job should be quite simple: The translation is already in good shape. Other checks and balances include checking with ‘power users’ in the target country, establishing review schedules for each project, and providing test scripts of all translated software and websites.

New definition of roles

In this refined quality process, the roles of each person involved differ greatly from the conventional method. Most importantly, greater expectation of quality is put on the original translator. The translators are given complete ownership of the translation piece. They are fully aware of the context in which the translation is going to be used and are concerned about the way it is going to be received by its audience. The process makes the best possible use of the combined competencies of the translator and the reviewer and the quality control step, which is conducted by the original translator, is an opportunity for them to review the piece in its final format. This sense of ownership has the effect of sharpening the individuals’ attention to detail to the extent that the introduction of a second, third or fourth individual becomes unnecessary.  

In this quality system, the translator is in control and the reviewer uses a detailed spot check form to evaluate the translation. Editing is not a separate function, but rather integrated into the role of translator and reviewer, both of whom are intimately aware of the customer’s concerns and quality criteria. In more than fifteen years of providing high-quality translations to a myriad of clients, I have learned that the client is always right—and that a quality system based on the clients needs really works.