March 2007 Archives

Leonor summed up Gilbane's perspective on the real challenge in content globalization in her entry of January 19:

We've found that the problem for organizations is less about the act of translation itself, and more about aligning the business processes that support it.

The hard part of globalization isn't translating one phrase to another. The core problem is the inefficiencies associated with how we do the translating, with how we move words from creation to consumption by their target audience.

Our latest Content Technology Works case study describes how Autodesk, a major software company with worldwide sales of $1.6 billion US, recognized that better processes and higher levels of automation are the critical elements of a scalable globalization strategy. More words in translation memory were important outcomes of its initiatives, but the real benefit to Autodesk is greater competitive advantage as a worldwide software company.

Minette Norman, Senior Software Systems Manager, Worldwide Localization, at Autodesk shares insights in a webinar on April 25, 1:00 pm ET. Registration is now open.

I recently spoke about language needs with a person who works in a multinational company. She mentioned that although English was the official corporate language, and all employees in different countries spoke it, issues arose when non-native speakers communicated with each other. The problem was not with special terminology, which everyone knew well, but rather with an incorrect tone of the message.

My native Finnish is a good example of a language which is quite different from e.g. Latin languages. We use a lot of the passive tone, and rather straightforward sentences, with little or no flourishes. When "translated" literally e.g. into English, the message can sound curt or commanding, due to lack of words like "please", "I would like to..." etc. A Finn could happily say "I want a steak" in a restaurant, without thinking that it sounds different from "Could I have a steak, please". On the other hand, a Finn would find a typical US user manual with its extremely exact instructions almost offensive to his or her intelligence.

A translator or an interpreter knows such cultural differences and takes them into account. But an increasing number of people communicates daily with each other in a non-native language. (All the worse when the communication is done mainly via email, where short sentences, typos and too many recipients on the cc: line add to the problem!) Knowing the special terminology is essential, but not enough. This also means that companies need to think about testing the language skills of their employees, and about giving them language and cultural training. After all, a satisfied customer would expect to hear not just the right words, but the right message.

As I said a few entries earlier, there are many estimates of the size of the translation market. EUATC, the European Union of Associations of Translation Companies, has published an interesting paper about the market size and growth at http://www.euatc.org/conferences/pdfs/2006/Boucau_FactsAndFigures.pdf.

The study points out that the translation market is going towards more consolidation, i.e. the bigger agencies are gaining more market share and growing faster than the 5% of the overall translation market. Then again, there is still a lot to consolidate: according to EUATC, about 3,000 translation companies manage 25% of the market, whereas about 200,000 free-lancers take care of 75% of the market, worth over $9bn.

As companies begin to see the importance of multilingual communication, instead of looking at translation only as a cost, they will need more complex and extensive services. At the same time they will still require a lot of individual skills. Managing a high level of personalized service to companies operating in several geographical locations is going to be an interesting skill in itself.