A recent panel discussion took place at MemoQFest on the subject "Has Translation Technology a Future".
What struck me about the panel's remarks was that:
1. they were primarily about tools; even the discussions of standards such as TMX and XLIFF were tool-oriented;
2. no one dealt with the importance of differing statistical reporting from tool to tool for translation data provided in the same standard format.
Here are my thoughts on these two issues:
1. The tool-oriented discussion. Even though the title of the discussion leads us first of all to tools, it is, I think, an error to consider tools outside of the Methods-Tools-Procedures relationship. The future of the technology we use depends on how we use the tools according to methods and procedures, not just on the tools themselves and the functionality they provide. And as far as standards are concerned, what about the method and procedure-oriented ones that exist for our industry such as EN 15038? How will the tools evolve along with these in the future? In particular, how are we going to use the tools in our costing methods and procedures. This brings us to my next point.
2. Statistics. The commercial model of our industry has been entirely based on word counts - and specifically, segment matches percentages - for 20 years now. It is a paradigm. The obvious fact is that a statistical algorithm is necessary to produce these stats from aligned source and target language files, and discounts for fuzzy and context matches and such are only possible if the persistent data from the iterations of whatever algorithm is being used are stored in a format that allows us to use them again. So, we not only need either open or standard exchange formats, we need to know what criteria the various algorithms use (because they don't produce comparable results).
However, the real problem with rates that are based purely on segment matching and word count statistics is that they don't necessarily represent the cost of a translation. Statistical data are only one aspect of actual translation cost. This cost is better represented by the time taken for each stage in the translation process. This is because other factors can double or triple the cost. These factors include: subject field, quality of writing (is it, for example, clear?), the availability of relevant terminological data, document sensitivity (is the doc. internal or external, marketing or reporting) etc. Translation cannot be reduced to Adam Smith's pin factory. Nor can it be reduced to human resource management as last year's key note speaker seemed to think. It is more like agribusiness, where you have everything from factory farming to organic farming, from fast food to slow food, from cafeterias to gourmet restaurants, from hypermarkets (...) to small specialty shops.
I think that the current paradigm is running out of steam. More and more translators and LSPs are realizing that it is an abstraction that is no longer entirely satisfactory.
Finally given that Daniel Brockmann, one of the driving forces behind this paradigm (which has allowed our industry to grow rapidly ...), attended MemoQFest, wouldn't his participation in this discussion have made it more representative? Perhaps he didn't want to. If so, too bad. I for one am looking forward to a discussion in the future where all the actual issues are dealt with.
Doug, I believe that the SDL contingent were instructed to say as little as possible at a competitive forum and would have been welcome on the panel. I would have greeted that in any case.
RépondreSupprimerYou are right that the paradigm of piece rate calculation and mysterious, fuzzy calculation is a tired one that has largely run flat. If piece rates are to continue to be a routine part of cost calculations, at the very least some effort should be made to get everyone to disclose the underlying algorithms and agree on standards here. Some of the obvious elements in the calculations used traditionally by Mr. Brockmann's company, such as ignoring free-standing number and numerical date information, are so obviously out of touch with reality and real effort in translation that they deserve to be reviled for the damage they do to service providers who are in some way subject to those calculations.
However, there is a discernible trend among freelancers and some companies to get away from distracting piece rate calculation and focus on the perceived overall value (like a good copywriter) or at least billable hours. Fry & Bonthrone, a high-end specialist for financial translation, does the latter for instance. While volumes and fuzzy match rates may help one to anticipate effort required, there are so many other variables (like how often does the customer come back with silly questions, or how difficult is the text) that by the time one gets done explaining it all (if you are foolish enough to engage in that conversation), you might as well just estimate the hours and quote based on that and be done with it. I am moving more in that direction myself.
Both of these little things - open algorithms and more realistic approaches to billing - could in many ways be more significant to the "future" of translation than any of the anticipated technical changes. Technology and its application are largely unpredictable over anything more than a very short time span as our own time on this Earth clearly reveals. Therefore, in planning and discussing the future, we should focus on the factors we can control, like calculation and billing, as well as the ever-important human factors such as building sustainable relationships. People are the common thread running from the past to the future, and our needs for trust and cooperation to achieve anything useful have not changed and will not change no matter how much the terms to describe them may evolve.
Kevin, In fairness to SDL, I can understand that they might feel a little awkward about participating in a forum at MemoQFest. After all, there is an almost cult-like fervour in some MemoQ users. I for one was very glad to see them at the conference: exchanges of ideas can only be positive.
RépondreSupprimerAs far as costing goes, I agree with you that translators and some LSPs are beginning to remove the per-word rate from its pedestal.
I think that if we look at the history of our profession, we can see a logical progression from the pre-IT per-word pricing system to an IT-based one offering discounts for fuzzies, and not counting numbers. I agree with you that the latter is less than ideal, but also think that we have to look at every means available to us to offer a fair discount to our customers. It's time that inevitably tells us whether it's fair or not.
Your point about open algorithms is something else I agree with you on. We have open and proprietary segmentation algorithms that allow us to tweak the settings. Why not word statistics algorithms that allow us to do the same?
Actually, Doug, I thought it was your point about the open algorithms, but regardless of that it's something that harms no one and benefits all if standards are established and followed.
RépondreSupprimerAs far as "fair" discounts are concerned, I believe in none such, really. That implies that your calculation basis is somehow unfair to start with. Hourly billing of actual effort or "value-based" pricing, or even estimated effort pricing with a safety margin (my personal term for this is "NTE quotation") - I estimate the worst case, quote a high price with that "buffer", then give the client a nice surprise or at least a small early payment discount if things work out better. Can't get much fairer than that I think. To all parties.
Kevin, I disagree that the notion of fair discounts implies that the basis of calculation is unfair to start with. The reasoning is, I think, too binary. It's not a case of either/or. What I was in fact thinking of is the economic notion of fair price. It's a combination of considering market prices, the specific market segment, actual work involved, return on investment etc.
RépondreSupprimerOtherwise, I agree with you. Thanks for sharing your approach.