Recently in Terminology Management Category

Our April 16th webinar on translation-oriented authoring hosted by across Systems was an excellent 360 degree view of its value from a consultancy, language service provider, and end-user perspective. Thanks to Richard Sikes from LocFlowTech, Inc., Peter Argondizzo from Argo Translation, Inc., and Amy Karls from QuadTech for and a job well done! Access the recording here.

As Sikes noted in his opening remarks, decisions that get made in one part of an organization often show up as costs in another area. This is particularly true of translation and localization costs. Those who create and translate product content (user guides, operator manuals, quick start guides, online help, and the list goes on...) understand the downstream effect of decisions made under pressure all too well.

According to Karls, demand for multilingual product support content consistently is increasing, but timelines and resources are most assuredly not. Isolated story? We think not. Check out the webinar poll on the number of language outputs required from our audience, largely technical documentation folks.

Now check out the range of tools our audience is using to create product support content.

I believe there is not a single technical writer who intends to create inconsistencies or confusion for their translator counterparts. But stuff happens. Like "hurry up" pressure. Like "we lost our editor" pressure. Like "who's got the latest version of the Style Guide pressure."

According to Argondizzo, translation-oriented authoring has numerous advantages, among them:

• Unlocks never before utilized value of translation memory database for writers


• Strengthens partnership with language service provider and writers


• Provides content creators with a different perspective of translation memory usage


• Easy to understand and track savings


• Time saved by author not rewriting text


• Consistency for additional reuse in other channels


• Regulatory concerns in rewriting text that already exists

I wholeheartedly agree. Check out the webinar recording. The advantages of "assistance" is demonstrable and impressive, whether one calls it authoring assistance, translation-oriented authoring, or controlled authoring.

When applying the "one word" phrase to translation or localization processes, the "it" can be either accuracy or complete gaffe. Given the velocity of the Internet, an offensive or comical translation of just one word can proliferate faster than the designers of the age-old Faberge commercial could have imagined.

In fact, just one skewed word changes meaning, invites misinterpretation, and erodes quality. One inaccuracy; many consequences. Terminology Management (TM) should be a no-brainer, right? Unfortunately, we've seen TM listed toward the bottom of the priority list -- or not at all -- when discussing imperatives for the global content lifecycle within the content management community.

When I read SDL's report on the TM benefits realized by the European Institute of Romania (EIR) during their accession process, I thought it was an impressive story. 158,000 pages of translation; 54,000 terms covering more than 8 languages; 23,000 validated terms submitted to the EU's terminology database, Inter-Active Terminology for Europe (IATE). Hmmm. A collaborative, jointly-managed, and centralized terminology database with more than 8 million terms? Even more impressive.

Intrigue led me to SDL's Christie Fidura, Senior Product Marketing Manager, which led me to Karl-Johan Lönnroth, the Director General of The European Commission's Directorate-General for Translation (DGT). The Faberge commercial in action.

Described as one of the largest translation services in the world, the DGT provides translation services for all 23 of the European Union's official languages, has a permanent staff of 1,750 linguists and 600 support staff, and currently translates over 1.7 million pages per year. If that's not impressive enough, my interview with a very cordial Lönnroth provided even more insight in the EU's commitment to citizen expectations for translated content, the value of TM, and the impact of cross-country collaboration.

Lönnroth began the interview with a simple, but compelling statement: "The support of 23 languages equates to 506 possible language combinations. Managing this is impossible without terminology management." In managing the DGT as a service provider based on supply and demand, he also noted the continuing rise in expectations for translated content and with it, Web access to that content. Echoing the theme of the Globalization Track at Gilbane Boston 2007, Lönnroth's message was that EU citizens are less and less tolerant of institutional and legislative information that is not in their native language.

So how does the IATE fit in? Lönnroth sees the multi-year effort as both a government and public service in "reinforcing the EU's global interest in providing quality translations." Over the last year, the merger of all European term banks resulted in a remarkable -- and free -- knowledge repository comprising 50 years of work. The repository is essential for candidate countries seeking accession and faced with the requirement to translate the EU's Acquis Communautaire into their native language according to mandated deadlines. Such was the case for Romania and Bulgaria, which became Member States on January 1st, 2007.

As the Director-General of the DGT since 2004, Lönnroth is steadfast in promoting the EU principle of "unity in diversity" as well as the fact that multilingualism is essential. His focus on translation management is a critical part of the DGT blueprint for a multilingual European Union.

As we close our first year of the Gilbane Globalization blog, we looked back at our initial goals to help readers meet the challenges of multilingual business communications. Three conversations stood out as emerging themes that we felt were critical then -- and now:

• Understanding the impact of globalization on customer experience and brand management


• Viewing the global content lifecycle as a strategic business practice


• Closing the gap between content and translation management processes

Communicating the importance of each drove our 2007 blog entries, our conversations with corporate users and technology vendors, our globalization-specific case studies and whitepapers, and the design of the Globalization Track at Gilbane Boston 2007. As we did so, our favorite mantra continued to bubble up as the ultimate success criteria:

A holistic focus on the People, Processes, and Technology that create, translate, manage, distribute, and consume global content.

Our conversation wish list for 2008 is very "PPT"-driven. In fact, we can't think of any theme that does not require a collaboration of people, an interoperability between processes, and an integration of technologies:

• The power of single-sourcing to redefine "multi-channel" as more than device-driven outputs.


• The impact that human + machine translation combinations can have on the availability and quality of multilingual content.


• The value of terminology management in combating the proliferation of insulting translations.


• The potential of multilingual social networking.

And last but not least, the availability of "the wisdom of the crowds," or from our take, global access to shared best practices that enable organizations to learn from each other in attaining quality multilingual communications. We'll aim to make sure that goal is ongoing.

The Globalization Track's "Understanding the Globalization Standards Landscape" session provided a trio of experts to content management professionals wading through the industry's "alphabet soup" of authoring, translation, and integration standards. Moderator Kaija Poysti deftly led the audience on a road trip through a multi-dimensional standards landscape with more than a few controversial roadblocks.

The mission was to understand how a standards-driven strategy provides an impact on customer experience, provide expert guidance on which ones really matter, and take-away advice on what to ask when evaluating solutions. Panelists Don DePalma from Common Sense Advisory (CSA), Andrew Draheim from Dig-IT!, and Serge Gladkoff from GALA delivered on the mission and then some, with commentary on which are practical, which are simply theoretical, and most importantly, which have a positive impact when adopted. Highlights:

• On a "standards reality check": "You have no choice on some; Some are about good hygiene, but little used; and others are not ready for prime time in their current form. However, the code and content ecosystems definitely need an injection of globalization DNA." Don DePalma, CSA.
• On standards benefits: "Adoption can decrease the internal cost of doing business, decrease typical business risks, facilitate business interactions, increase the value of services to clients, save on R&D and business development, and save on internal personnel training. However, there are too many private standards and too few generally-adopted public standards. Standards are notoriously difficult to develop and upon completion, they compete; be warned though, the "winning" standards not always the best ones." Serge Gladkoff, GALA Standards Committee Chair.
• On synergies between content and translation management: "When these technologies work together, it streamlines processes, reduces duplication and errors, and makes publishing easier. Which standards will be around tomorrow? Take a look at Translation Memory eXchange, Segmentation Rules eXchange, XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF), and TermBase eXchange." Andrew Draheim, Dig-IT!.

Many thanks to our panel for guiding our audience through the globalization standards landscape with candor and real-world advice.

The Globalization Track's "Quality at the Source: Creating Global Customer Experience" provided advice from those in the trenches striving to do just that: bake in quality from the "get-go." From Gilbane's perspective, delivering customer experience is one thing; delivering global customer experience is quite another.

Our presenters understood this perspective from a "been there, doing that" frame of mind. Mary and I would like to thank Dee Stribling, Project Manager at SAS, Lori Kegel, Manager Technical Communications at Boston Scientific, and Richard Sikes, Senior Consultant & Advisor at The Localization Institute for demonstrating that global customer experience is not yet another industry phrase designed to bolster new marketing campaigns. Putting the global in customer experience is a necessity, critical for those with multinational revenue profiles, and presents tangible challenges for organizations to view the content lifecycle from a totally different perspective.

When perspective morphs to reality, organizations often unearth champions with a range of specialties that define the pillars for "going global." Consider the following quotes from our presenters that epitomize some of the success factors for globalization in organizations that clearly get it:

• On terminology management: "Words are the building blocks of an organization’s conceptual framework. The quality of terminology directly relates to an organization’s presence in the global community – words are an essential corporate asset!" Dee Stribling, SAS.


• On source inconsistencies: "The whip cracks loudest at the farthest end. Follow the creative process back along the whip to minimize fluctuations at the source." Richard Sikes, Localization Institute.


• On globalization issues within an M&A environment: "The overall end goal is the same for both business units. There are nuances specific to each business unit based on their internal goals and objectives (portfolios are different and cultures are different). These differences are largely due to where in the translation, memory management, and content management processes a business unit is functioning; one can be at the infancy stage and one can be much further in the growth within these processes." Lori Kegel, Boston Scientific.

Many thanks to our panel for sending the message that a satisfying customer experience happens only when communication is clear, consistent, error-free, and in the customer's native language.

Mary, Kaija and I are thrilled to have an extraordinary group of presenters for the Globalization Track at Gilbane Boston.

Although they will not discuss how to properly design and implement an international online dating service, our audience will learn a lot about creating, managing, and delivering a truly global customer experience. It is never too late for a trip into Boston, especially if these topics are relevant for you.

GCM-1: Quality at the Source: Creating Global Customer Experience
Tuesday November 27, 1:00-2:30pm

GCM-2: Integrating Content and Translation Processes: Managing Global Customer Experience
Tuesday November 27, 3:00-4:30pm

GCM-3: Understanding the Globalization Standards Landscape
Wednesday November 28, 2:00-3:30 pm

GCM-4: Global Content Management Track Keynote: Making Quality Everyone's Responsibility - Delivering Global Customer Experience
Thursday November 29, 8:30-10:00 am

I have said this many times before, and will say again: the world is multilingual, and more and more people are working daily in a multilingual environment. In companies, this multilingual environment is not only about translation, but about working with customers and colleagues whose native language is different from one's own. That can lead to a lot of miscommunication, and I think that nobody has even started to measure the real costs or missed sales arising from it.

Communication starts with terminology, and that is where I see a lot of needs (and opportunities) for new solutions. Corporate terminology - "that which we call a widget by any other name goes in other companies" - is something that I think benefits from active input from corporate experts. Wikis seem an interesting way to enhance corporate communication, so I emailed with Greg Lloyd, CEO of Traction Software to ask whether he has seen wikis used for handling multilingual issues. He can be reached at grl@tractionsoftware.com.

Traction Software has been in the corporate blog/wiki business since July 2002, and has 250+ corporate customers. According to Greg, Traction's TeamPage is best described in terms of Doug Engelbart's NLS/Augment model, re-imagined for the Web (more at Traction Roots | Doug Engelbart.

KP: Do your customers use wikis to handle multilingual issues, such as terminology?

GL: We have an international pharma customer who wanted to provide an interactive online glossary of terms that have specialized meanings. For example, in writing a new drug application, many terms have specialized meanings and interpretations dictated by regulatory authorities in the U.S., Europe and other regions.

At this customer, glossary definitions are usually written by people with specialized experience in new drug applications and similar filings, but the glossaries are intended for working reference by everyone in the company - not limited to those who deliver translations. The company has offices around the world, but most working communication is in English or French. A majority of employees have very good reading knowledge of both languages, but aren't necessarily aware of some specialized meanings and interpretations - including those which change as new regulations are issued.

We developed a "Glossary skin" to address this need. The Glossary skin is a Traction "skin" or UI presentation layer that in this case, provides a specialized and simplified Glossary view of the underling blog/wiki data stored in the TeamPage Journal. It gives the users versatile tools for handling terminology, such as looking up glossary terms, term definitions, guidance on how to use the term, and the possibility to comment a term or ask questions about it. All terms are in both English and French. Changes and additions can be tracked with standard blog/wiki features, and the users can also subscribe to RSS/Atom feeds on updates. These are just a few of the functionalities of the solution.

KP: Do the wiki glossaries integrate with other glossaries or localization tools, such as translation memories?

GL: For the Glossary Wiki there are no special translator tools built in. I believe that general purpose translation tools will likely best be loosely-coupled mashup style. I haven't seen requests for industry specific glossaries from customers, but I think there may be a business opportunity.

KP: What kind of feedback have you received from your customer? Have there been requests for special functionalities?

GL: The pharma customer is very happy with the result, which is used company-wide. We've also demonstrated the Glossary skin to customers in Japan and other countries. Several have expressed interest and are piloting use of the Glossary skin, primarily for developing and delivering specialized glossaries for internal working communication as well as translating deliverables.

The ability for global enterprises to create interactive Glossaries for working communication among employees, suppliers and other stakeholders seems to be getting the most interest. Many global companies use English as a standard for internal communication, but the ability to add comments or questions in other languages is a big plus. The ability to create and delivery interactive Web glossaries in Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, etc. as well as European and other Asian languages is also very useful.

Traction uses UTF-8 Unicode to store, search and deliver content written in any combination of European and Asian alphabets in any blog/wiki space (or in the same page), so a multi-lingual global glossary is easy to deliver and can be simple to author using the standard Web browser interface.

KP: What have been the biggest advantages your customers have received from using a wiki to create a glossary, instead of using a specialized terminology management tool?

GL: The biggest advantages are: 1) Simple access using a Web browser, particularly when the wiki has specialized skin to make the Glossary application work with no training; 2) Simple group editing and history using the the wiki edit model; 3) Simple integration of comments and feedback; 4) Simple, scalable and secure deployment corporate-wide.

KP: Corporate wikis seem to be an interesting way to share information and expertise. Do you see them also being used for translation work?

GL: Yes, I can certainly see how the Glossary skin could be extended to support other wiki per-page translation models. At present the Glossary skin implementation is available to TeamPage customers as a Traction Skin Definition Language (SDL) plug-in. We'll be packaging it along with its SDL source code as a free plug-in example later this summer. We'll work with customers and partners to determine how to best provide translation wiki's powered by Traction TeamPage.

Quality is such a fun topic to discuss. Good quality - and bad - is instantly recognizable, but difficult to define. I bet that everybody who has been involved in a translation project, either as a customer or as a vendor, has had discussions about translation quality: how many mistakes there were, what was a mistake and what was just a difference of opinion, what related materials and terminology lists were given beforehand, and so on.

Quality issues can be very frustrating to both customers and vendors, and they definitely affect the profit margins of both. It would be great to have a clear-cut definition of a good translation, a "six-sigma of language". The problem is that quality is very much about perception. Yes, there are the typos and grammatical errors, which are easy to define and to spot. But then there is style, and the question of whether the intended message was conveyed or "lost in translation", like Bill Murray in Tokyo. And that is where the slippery slope begins.

Eventually good quality means that the target audience received the message its provider intended it to receive. In the translation industry, this also includes that the correct message was received in time and within the translation budget.

LISA has done a major effort to establish a QA model which is described on http://www.lisa.org/products/qamodel/. The LISA QA model helps to quantify some of the quality issues, and gives a tool which customers and vendors can share in their discussions. Most importantly, it has been developed in co-operation by end users, software and hardware developers, and localization vendors, so it accumulates their joint experience.

One can, however, quantify only so many qualitative issues. The rest - the more elusive "perceived issues" - tend to fall under customer relationship management.