Global, Regional, Local: Managing Coronavirus and…Translation Spend?

全球,区域,地方:管理新冠疫情和…翻译费用?

2020-10-20 05:20 RWS Moravia Insights

本文共1639个字,阅读需17分钟

阅读模式 切换至中文

In the last few months in the UK, nationally collected statistics on coronavirus outbreaks have been made available locally. These data can identify recorded infections per street and even per apartment block in more densely populated areas. Track and Trace, which was previously handled nationally with mixed success, is now being partly devolved to local councils. They have the knowledge of locales in their area and the ability to knock on doors if necessary. In a recent BBC Radio interview on the topic, the reporter aggressively asked a local government official whether it would have been better to have local involvement from the beginning of the pandemic. The interviewee calmly explained that many measures could only be done nationally, such as providing financial aid to businesses to furlough staff, creating policies for border control and education and other legal measures. But now that we’re in a containment phase, additional local action with the benefit of local knowledge is necessary to prevent another national lockdown. In addition to this national-versus-local debate, we’ve heard discussions about the different legal, health, law enforcement and educational structures in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales that have resulted in slightly different approaches to the pandemic, plus arguments about the World Health Organization’s role in managing the pandemic at the global level. Thankfully, in the translation business, lives are not at stake in as direct a way as they are for those managing the pandemic. However, the discussions around the appropriate responses to the spread of coronavirus have reminded me of the tensions that exist in multinational companies between global, regional and local purchasing and marketing departments and the difficulties that are often encountered when companies try to manage global messaging and translation spend. Global, regional or local management of translation requirements In multinational companies with multiple divisions, local offices are often responsible for purchasing translation services from local suppliers. These tend to be freelance translators or smaller companies (single-language vendors, known as SLVs in the industry, as opposed to multi-language vendors or MLVs). The local divisions get local rates, have close contact with their linguists and get just what they want. From a central purchasing perspective, however, this a nightmare, as translation spend can easily spiral out of control with too many suppliers. It’s also a nightmare from the central marketing perspective, with the potential for inconsistent translations leading to brand erosion. To overcome this situation, global marketing and purchasing departments often embark on initiatives to centralize how and from whom translation services are purchased. This usually culminates in an RFP process looking to select one, two or potentially three MLVs in place of the plethora of SLVs and freelancers being used at the time. But to do this in a multi-national, multi-divisional company is a non-trivial task. Over the years, I have seen a number of such initiatives run aground, leading to failure for the purchasing and marketing departments and, if the process gets as far as selecting a language services provider (LSP), leading to the LSP’s failure to deliver as expected. Assumptions around centralizing spend are not as straightforward as they might seem. What are these assumptions and how can common pitfalls be avoided? We’ll reduce costs by centralizing translation spend One driver for centralization that can also be used as a measure of success is cost reduction. This is based on expected economies of scale: buying all translation from a single supplier or a vastly reduced pool should enable the purchasing department to negotiate lower rates. However, if price per word (the most common unit for translation pricing) is used for cost calculations and comparisons, this measure alone is unlikely to show any cost reduction. MLVs cannot match local freelancers or SLVs on price per word. MLVs manage the onboarding, training and quality evaluation of the linguists they use and build teams of translators so that they can guarantee consistent delivery and quality. They offer a single point of contact for all languages, have a wider range of services and usually invest in the latest language technology. A freelancer purchasing model lacks both the added value and scale offered by MLVs, but naturally at an associated cost. And while the security, scale and services of an MLV might be of interest to a global purchasing or marketing department, these factors are mostly irrelevant to local office needs. Why would a local office buy into higher prices for services they do not require? We’ll manage the translation budget centrally It may seem logical to take control of the budget and oversee translation for the business as a whole. The question in this case is whether it’s even possible to know how much translation is required across the business and what the global budget is. Translation spends are often hidden in other cost centres such as marketing, legal and publishing, so how can the centralized function manage all the disparate departments’ needs? Can the centralized function effectively convince local stakeholders to relinquish control over their relationships and funnel everything through the new MLV instead? Not surprisingly, once the centralized marketing and purchasing functions understand the web of intricacies, some choose to avoid the conflict and abandon centralization. Technology will enforce compliance Another centralization assumption is that implementing technology can enforce the use of approved suppliers. Some companies make it mandatory for employees to use the company e-catalogue to order products and services only from authorized suppliers. Other companies look to select a language services supplier with their own online portal through which all translation orders must be placed. Occasionally, companies request that translation suppliers connect their translation portal to the company’s e-catalogue via a “punchout”. The aim is to funnel all requirements through the technology in order to capture and measure the global translation spend. However, there are several reasons the punchout connection doesn’t support the business process of buying translation (see my LinkedIn post on the topic). In general, if local teams perceive that the technology adds complexity rather than simplify things, they will find ways around it, rendering the solution ineffective. From the MLV’s perspective, dealing directly with local offices negates their advantage over SLVs of providing global coverage with a single point of contact. Furthermore, they incur additional costs by having to manage many local stakeholders with relatively small requests transacted in a variety of local currencies. The new language services provider will just ‘plug and play’ Once the LSP is selected, the purchasing department believes their work is over and the language services provider just needs to begin translating. However, the LSP’s work to ensure that they can deliver to the stakeholders’ requirements is just beginning, and without buy-in from end users throughout the organization, that’s going to be an uphill task. The onboarding phase is the time for learning, training, setting up processes and building trust. The advantage of selecting a truly global MLV is that it should be organizationally structured to provide global coverage with a consistent message and level of service. In order to do so, on top of organizational and process discussions, the MLV should work with all stakeholders to understand their language requirements, which include: Gathering existing brand guides, tone of voice guidelines and product terminology applicable to the language markets targeted for translation; Learning the language preferences of the stakeholders in each market and how they will determine what a “good” translation is; Performing a content audit to establish the content needs at the global, regional and local levels; and Mapping content types to the various localization approaches, which include: Translating accurately to reflect the global brand; Translating and adapting to be faithful (rather than literal) to the original to convey meaning; Translating more freely to communicate a concept; Adapting content at the regional level (e.g. for legal or cultural reasons) before being translated; and Writing content from scratch in the local language when it is specific to one market, using only a brief as a guide. Translating accurately to reflect the global brand; Translating and adapting to be faithful (rather than literal) to the original to convey meaning; Translating more freely to communicate a concept; Adapting content at the regional level (e.g. for legal or cultural reasons) before being translated; and Writing content from scratch in the local language when it is specific to one market, using only a brief as a guide. Successful management at all levels Any initiative to centralize translation spend will likely struggle to be successful if it merely compares word rates between suppliers or is betting solely on the implementation of technology to enforce compliance. Success will come from the LSP and client working in a true partnership. Both parties need to continue selling the value that the partnership provides through discussions with stakeholders at every level of the organization in terms that are meaningful to them. Each group of stakeholders has its requirements and the frameworks used to fulfil them as part of the partnership. What we have seen in the UK’s management of the coronavirus pandemic is a debate around the different roles that each tier of government can and should play in response to a crisis. Similarly, when prospective clients and providers engage in a global translation RFP, they should question each other on how they’ll work together globally, regionally and locally to be successful in deploying the overall solution. I’m not suggesting that the questioning be as aggressive as the BBC Radio reporter’s, but a similar line of enquiry may prove enlightening for both parties, help select a suitable language services provider and enable the successful implementation of the centralized translation services initiative.   Many thanks to Solutions Architect Stuart Sklair for authoring this post.
在过去的几个月中,英国在全国范围内收集的冠状病毒暴发的统计数据已在当地提供。这些数据可以识别每条街道,甚至人口更密集地区的每一个公寓楼的记录感染情况。追踪和追踪项目以前在全国范围内进行,成效参差不齐,现在部分项目正移交给市政委员会。他们对所在地区的环境有一定的了解,必要时还能上门拜访。 在最近的一次BBC广播采访中,这位记者就这一话题积极地问一位地方政府官员,在疫情开始时就让地方参与其中会不会更好。受访者冷静地解释道,许多措施只能在全国范围内采取,例如向企业提供财政援助,让员工休假,制定边境管制和教育政策以及其他法律措施。但现在我们正处于疫情控制阶段,为了防止再次实行全国封锁,有必要利用本地知识采取额外的本地行动。除了国家-地方的辩论之外,我们还听到了人们谈论英格兰,北爱尔兰,苏格兰和威尔士的法律,卫生,法律和教育体系不尽相同,因此各地应对大流行的方式也略有不同。此外我们还听到了人们讨论世卫组织在处理全球新冠疫情中到底发挥了什么作用。 庆幸的是,在翻译行业,人们还不至于像那些新冠疫情管理者那样焦头烂额。然而,有关应对冠状病毒传播的适当对策的讨论,却让我想起了跨国公司里全球,区域和本地采购和营销部门之间的紧张关系,以及公司试图管理全球信息传递和翻译支出时经常遇到的困难。 翻译需求的全球,区域或本地管理 在设有多个分部的跨国公司里,当地部门通常负责从当地供应商购买翻译服务。这些供应商往往是自由译员或小公司(单语供应商,在业内称为SLV,多语供应商则是MLV)。当地部门使用的是当地的费用价格,和语言供应商有着密切的联系,并得到他们想要的语言服务。 然而,从核心采购的角度来看,这是一场噩梦,因为供应商太多,翻译费用很容易失控。从市场营销的角度来看,这也是一场噩梦,因为翻译不一致可能导致品牌受损。为了解决这一问题,全球营销和采购部门经常采取举措,对翻译服务采购的方式和对象进行集中处理。这在RFP过程中最为明显,这一过程是为了挑选出一两个或三个多语供应商,而非泛滥的单语供应商和已受聘用的自由译员。 但在一个多部门的跨国企业里,做到这一点非常艰难。多年来,我看到了很多此类的提议被搁置,导致采购和营销部门无法完成工作,而且,如果这个过程足够漫长,到了选择语言服务供应商(LSP)的地步,就会导致语言服务供应商无法按期交付。集中翻译费用的设想并不像看起来那么简单。 这些设想是什么?我们又该如何避免常见的陷阱? 我们将通过集中翻译费用来降低成本 缩减成本是集中费用的一个驱动因素,也可作为成功的衡量标准。基于预期规模经济可见:从单一供应商或大幅减少的联营处购买所有翻译服务,应使采购部门能够谈到较低的费用。但是,如果使用每字价格(翻译定价最常用的单位)进行成本计算和比较,单凭这一衡量标准不太可能实现成本降低。 在每字价格方面,多语供应商的报价和当地自由译员或单语供应商的报价不同。多语供应商管理自己语言学家的入职,培训和质量评估,并建立翻译团队,以便他们能按时交付和保证质量。他们为所有语言提供单一联络点,以及更广泛的服务,也通常投资最前沿的语言技术。购买自由译员翻译服务的模式则缺乏多语供应商提供的附加价值和规模,但也自然要付出相应的成本。虽然多语供应商的安全性,规模和服务可能会引起全球采购或营销部门的兴趣,但这些因素大多与当地办事处的需求无关。当地部门又怎么会用高价购买他们不需要的服务呢? 我们将集中管理翻译预算 控制预算,监管整个业务的翻译看似合乎逻辑。但问题是,究竟有无可能知道整个业务的翻译量,以及全球的预算。翻译费用通常隐藏在其他费用环节,如营销,法律和出版,那么,中心职能部门如何解决不同部门的需求?他们能否有效说服当地利益攸关方对其关系做出让步,转而通过新的多语供应商将一切费用集中起来?毫不奇怪,中心营销和采购职能部门一旦理解了这些错综复杂的东西,一些人就会选择避免冲突并放弃集中费用。 技术将强制遵守 另一个集中费用的假想是,实施技术可以强制人们使用经批准的供应商。一些公司强制要求员工使用公司电子目录,只向授权供应商订购产品和服务。其他公司则希望选择一家拥有自己的在线门户的语言服务供应商,所有翻译订单都必须通过该门户下单。有时,公司会要求翻译供应商通过“打卡”将其翻译门户连接到公司的电子目录。其目的是通过该技术收集所有需求,以便捕获和衡量全球翻译支出费用。然而,打卡式的连接方式不能运用在购买翻译的业务流程,当中有几个原因(详情请参考我的LinkedIn文章)。 一般来说,如果本地团队认为该技术增加了复杂性而不是简化了事情,他们就会想办法绕过它,这样一来,这种方法便无用武之地。从多语供应商的角度来看,直接与当地部门打交道,会使他们相对于单语供应商而言,通过单一联络点提供全球覆盖的优势不复存在。此外,由于必须管理多个当地利益攸关方,而当地货币处理的请求又相对较少,因此也会产生额外费用。 新的语言服务提供商将只是“即插即用” 一旦选择了语言服务供应商,采购部门认为他们的工作已经结束,语言服务供应商只需要开始翻译。然而,供应商确保他们能够满足涉众需求的工作才刚刚开始,如果没有整个机构的终端用户的支持,这将是一项艰巨的任务。 入职阶段是学习,培训,建立流程和建立信任的时间。选择一个真正全球性的多语的好处是,它的组织结构应该以一致的信息和服务水平提供全球覆盖。为了做到这一点,除了组织和过程上的讨论,多语供应商应与所有利益攸关方合作,了解他们的语言要求,其中包括: 收集适用于翻译目标语言市场的现有品牌指南,语调指南和产品术语; 了解每个市场的利益相关者的语言偏好,以及他们将如何确定什么是“好”的翻译; 进行内容审计,以确定全球,区域和地方各级的内容需求;和 将内容类型映射到各种本地化方法,包括: 准确翻译,体现全球品牌; 翻译和改编忠实于原文(而不是字面上)以传达意义; 更自由地翻译以传达概念; 在翻译之前先在区域一级(例如出于法律或文化原因)调整内容;和 当内容的目标是某个市场时,用当地语言从头开始编写,仅将简介作为指南。 准确翻译,体现全球品牌; 翻译和改编忠实于原文(而不是字面上)以传达意义; 更自由地翻译以传达一个概念; 在翻译之前先在区域一级(例如出于法律或文化原因)调整内容;和 当内容是特定于一个市场时,用当地语言从头开始编写,仅将简介作为指南。 各级成功管理 任何集中翻译支出的举措,如果仅仅是比较供应商之间的字数,或者仅仅把赌注押在技术的实施上,以强制执行,都很可能难以取得成功。能否成功将来源于语言服务供应商和客户是否在一个真正的伙伴关系中工作。双方都需要通过与组织各级利益攸关方的讨论,以对他们有意义的方式,继续销售这一关系提供的价值。作为伙伴关系的一部分,每一个利益攸关方群体都有自己的要求和用来满足这些要求的框架。 在英国对冠状病毒大流行的管理中,我们看到的是一场围绕各级政府在应对危机中能够和应该发挥的不同作用的辩论。同样,当潜在客户和供应商参与全球翻译RFP时,他们应该就如何在全球,区域和本地合作以成功部署整体解决方案相互询问。我并不是建议要像英国广播公司电台记者的提问那样咄咄逼人,但类似的提问方式可能对双方都有启发,有助于选择合适的语言服务提供商,并使集中翻译服务倡议得以成功实施。 非常感谢解决方案架构师Stuart Sklair撰写了这篇文章。

以上中文文本为机器翻译,存在不同程度偏差和错误,请理解并参考英文原文阅读。

阅读原文