|
Software companies today are perfectly aware that in order to spread their business world- wide and reach international markets an investment in product localisation is essential. This applies to small, medium, and large com- panies. Questions that often arise are what is the best method for carrying out such a complex under- taking and whether this should be outsourced to external vendors or done by an in-house localisation team. The current situation points towards a logical trend: large organisations prefer to work with localisation part- ners, while medium and small companies are more likely to create an in-house localisation team to manage the process onsite. Both approaches have advantages and dis- advantages and consequently, some companies choose a hybrid model combining both practices.
Larger companies prefer outsourcing because localisa- tion vendors often provide the necessary strategy and human resources to deal efficiently with a large volume of work. They are technologically prepared, and the transla- tors live in their native countries, which ensures up-to- date use of language. Localisation partners also provide a faster turnaround, since there are many people working on the same project, although linguistic quality assurance can become a challenge. Workflow management also has to be very accurate to ensure a perfect final result.
In contrast, the disadvantages for the client are high costs, lower level of cooperation and involvement, com- munication difficulties, and the risk of becoming vendor- dependent in the future. Once the project has been out- sourced, the client often avoids any contact with the ven- dor. The best practice is for both vendor and client to become deeply involved in the process and to reach a good understanding of each other’s needs. Keeping a con- stant interaction may be time-consuming, but it is more profitable in the long term.
Creating an in-house localisation team also has advan- tages for a medium or small company: lower costs (although they have to invest in human resources and technology), better communication and coordination, smooth functional testing, and straightforward problem solving. Moreover, translators are in permanent contact with developers, which is a great help for better under- standing of the product that is to be localised. Updates are also easier to perform since the whole process becomes simpler.
However, disadvantages are also evident, especially when dealing with multilingual projects. Having an in- house group of localisation professionals from various countries makes it difficult for translators living outside their native country to be in contact with the live language, so the risk of getting inaccurate results is higher. Meeting deadlines also becomes a tough issue: the fewer people working on a project, the more effort it will take to finish the job. Appropriate tools, well-trained localisation pro- fessionals, and efficient management of all the linguistic and technical tasks are crucial aspects for attaining suc- cessful results in an in-house localisation project.#p#分页标题#e#
The best solution may be a mixture of both procedures. Defining which task is better to handle in-house and what should be assigned to an external vendor may refine the whole process and make it cost-effective. The key is to determine the objectives, identify the available resources, evaluate the needs, distribute the tasks, and monitor the THIS ARTICLE WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN LOCALISATION FOCUS VOLUME 3 ISSUE 2 JUNE 2004 67 SOFTWARE LOCALISATION:
OUTSOURCING OR IN-HOUSE? Noemí Fluixàprocess from the earliest stage to its final completion.
Noemí Fluixà has a degree in Translation and Interpretation (UPF) and a Postgraduate in Translation and Information Technologies (UAB). She works as a Localisation Project Coordinator and Translator in McNeel Europe, a software company where she has worked for three years. She can be reached at LOCALIZATION R EADER 2004 -2005 68
|
