Localization provision In-house versus outsourced models

Transcription

1 Localization provision In-house versus outsourced models Prepared by: Anna Simpkins Applied Language Solutions March

2 Page2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are key drivers that straddle both in-house and outsourced localization provision; quality, turnaround times, languages requirements, content specialisms and cost. These drivers influence the decision to invest in a viable model for the organization. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches with the main benefits to the latter over the former being around resourcing and the associated costs. It is not clear whether quality outweighs these issues in all cases, as level of service and experience will vary from one language services provider (LSP) to another, but the following, balanced findings are based on our own experiences combined with feedback from customers with large localization requirements. RESOURCE AND WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT Several roles need to be included in an in-house or outsourced localization team in order to ensure steady job handling, linguist management, internal communication, etc. Localization of large and frequent volumes is usually the responsibility of the organization s localization or marketing manager. This individual must communicate the localization process internally but they generally won t be in a position to devote 100% of their time to managing the resource and workflow process. This requires an additional link in the chain between the internal members of staff requesting the localization support and the linguists in order to manage the process effectively. This linguist resource management role is critical to prioritize jobs in an in-house environment as there will be a finite linguistic resource and some jobs will take precedence over others, for example financial reporting over health and safety training documentation. If any jobs become backed up then this could result in products or services being late to market, which could have a financial impact on the organization over the longer term in addition to creating friction internally within the organization structure. Resource management and workflow process management are key roles within an outsourced model, without associated costs in some cases and most have the capacity and resource in place to ensure that projects don t get backed up in the project pipeline. The organization therefore doesn t need to prioritise departmental localization tasks as all can be undertaken at the same time within the outsourced model. The downside of this model is that the ultimate control over linguist assignment to projects will lie with the LSP and not with the organization itself, although requests for specific linguists can be made.

3 Page3 One additional benefit of the outsourced resource is that additional language services can quickly be implemented, using existing knowledge of the organization, its style guides, glossaries, TMs, etc - for example multilingual SEO (with skilled search engine linguists), transcribing or interpreting. LINGUIST RESOURCE Excellent linguists work in both full time and in freelance roles and an organization must consider the benefits of each linguistic resource solution. Costs can be carefully monitored in the in-house model, which can be ideal in terms of managing the localization budget however this advantage can be negated by the down time that will also come as a result of full time employed linguists. The necessity for linguists with specific content type experience (such as HR documentation) and subject matter knowledge (such as financial services sector) will also need to be taken into account as will the need for proofreaders/reviewers with exactly the same skills and experience. An in-house resource means that costs can be fixed which gives total visibility of localization spend. These employees will also be immersed in the culture of the organization, which eliminates the need to spend time correcting stylistic queries, as would be the case with an outsourced linguistic team. More importantly, those linguists are also in the enviable position of being able to influence source content more, which generally improves the localization process. There is however the risk that this access to transcreate content will mean the organization s content deviates from its original style and therefore becomes less effective in its end state. If linguistic services are outsourced then the organization loses direct control over the linguists selection for localization jobs. This can result in quality and consistency being compromised, although any LSP would work extremely hard to avoid this, based on feedback from its client base. Wherever possible, workload can be matched to the internal linguists skills, which is ideal in organizations where the flow of localization projects is steady and constant in terms of volumes, deadlines, content and languages. This could however present a problem if it was identified that resource needed short term upscaling. Jobs could end up backing up within the organization which would have a financial implication. Outsourcing to freelance linguists via a language services provider ensures a responsive service, quick turnaround times and a resource that can be upscaled or downscaled to meet localization requirements as they flex. Many organizations don t have a steady flow of jobs and instead respond to peaks and troughs of localization demand and this is where an outsourced solution can be more cost effective and efficient.

4 Page4 Although costs are not fixed as they would be with full-time employed linguists, organizations only have to pay for what they use. This eliminates costs for down time generated by holidays and any planned or unplanned absence. Freelancers are completely focused on their high throughput to ensure a steady income, therefore they tend to work faster than in-house linguists, who often need to multitask within their roles. They are also often keen to work into the evenings, outside of traditional office working hours, to ensure maximum project-related income. With a pool of freelance linguists, based in their native countries, all languages can be covered at no additional cost to the organization, other than the standard cost of the project. This also allows for 24*7 provision so there is no down time cost to be absorbed. The downside of this however could be seen to be that there may be some inconsistency in the provision of certain linguists in other words an organization might not get the same linguist from one project to the next. Even if this is requested it is not always possible to meet this demand. QUALITY Quality is critical in localization and must be maintained through whichever route is selected; in-house or outsourced provision. Quality control can often be tighter within an in-house linguistic team as the same linguists are working on the content repeatedly. They are familiar with terminology so don t need to refer to glossaries and style guides in the same way that freelance linguists will so the process can be simplified and consistency is assured. Quality is however reliant on the management processes in place and this requires proofreaders, reviewers and quality managers, which can be an additional expense to the organization as they should always be independent from the translators that have worked on the source material. As stated above, using multiple linguists over a period of time with one customer can affect quality. To mitigate this risk, the review and quality management process needs to be robust and consistent. A critical role in the quality management of localization is the proofreading/reviewing stage, which is provided by the LSP.

5 Page5 HUMAN RESOURCES As with any internal resourcing challenge, staffing costs go beyond the basic salary of any employee. Recruitment, training, employer s tax, premises and support costs all have to be attributed to staffing overheads and these obviously also fluctuate in different geographic markets. As stated earlier in this document, the ideal in-house resource will include a localization manager, a translation manager, a file engineer and linguists. With all of this additional headcount comes associated overheads, which can essentially double the cost of the budgeted salaries. This has to be kept in mind when planning the installation of an in-house localization team. Unlike traditional staffing, the outsourced model has fewer associated people costs for the organization. The sole cost will be around buying the linguist time and, in some cases, file engineering and project management time. Associated HR costs for these individuals will not be passed on to the organization. TECHNOLOGY Technology costs associated with the provision of localization services, whether in-house or outsourced, must also be taken into account, both in terms of both skilled individuals and the hardware/software With an in-house solution, in addition to the initial recruitment costs and ongoing training costs, there will be a significant technology cost, which will be influenced by the software requirements of the projects and the licensing. Hardware costs will be the initial outgoing expense, which will then be compounded by licensing of fonts, software purchasing, glossary handling tools, TM technology and potentially tools such as Trados. Even with this basic provision there will be a lack of flexibility around content types that can be supported. Another thing to be considered is whether 24 hour project management and linguist cover will be available. If this is a requirement then additional resource will need to be employed which brings associated employment costs along with basic salary expenses. Any professional LSP will have all the hardware, software and translation tools in place to ensure full localization provision. In addition, the costs associated with upgrade, TM maintenance and training are

6 Page6 absorbed by the LSP. An LSP will also have the added benefit of staying abreast of language industry evolution, new solutions, cloud delivered services, etc. SUMMARY There are obvious benefits to the creation of an in-house localization team mainly the cost control and the quality management. This solution is ideal for an organization with limited language requirements that are unlikely to increase in the immediate future, that has a steady stream of projects of similar sizes that can be planned in each month without any need for flexibility. The in-house solution however is more costly over time due to technology, training, recruitment, licensing and tool upgrade costs. All of these things can be cost prohibitive to an organization whose workflow fluctuates and requires file engineering of any non-standard documentation.