Rate me, my friend
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,261 views
The document summarizes improvements made by InText Translation Company to their quality assurance processes. They implemented a new QA model that provides more objective feedback to translators by directly comparing original and edited text. This identifies exact errors and ensures the same mistakes receive consistent scores. The model also generates a Total Quality Index and skill ratings. These changes motivate translators by linking their ratings to pay scales, and project managers by basing incentives on average project quality. The results include more rational payments, improved quality oversight, and accessible past work for new employees.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Rate me, my friend
Similar to Rate me, my friend (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Rate me, my friend
- 1. Work in unison with your vendors, tune the quality of your translations and don’t loose your tempo Valentyna Kozlova InText Translation Company
- 2. InText Translation Company Founded in 2002 in Ukraine We translate from European languages into Russian and Ukrainian In-house band: 30 employees Freelancers involved: 60 translators every day Words translated in 2011: 22 m Oil and Gas Technical and Engineering Satellite and Rocket Technologies Information Technologies and Telecommunications 2
- 3. InText Translation Company May 18–19, 2013 Kyiv, Ukraine 3
- 5. The Dark Side of the Database 2500 vendors 500 active 2000 inactive 20 well-known 480 strangers 5
- 6. No Communication between Translators and Editors • A translator never knew whether an editor liked his text • Editors saw the same mistakes repeated by the same translators day after day 6
- 7. PM Motivation • There was no incentive for project managers to produce high quality projects • They already knew 20 people who were always ready to translate at a reasonable price Freelancers Well-known Strangers 7
- 8. Analyzing QA Models • LISA QA Models (1.0, 2.0, 3.0) • ATA Framework for Standard Error Marking • SAE J2450 • ITR BlackJackQuality Metric • Microsoft MILS 8
- 9. InText vs. LISA QA Model 9
- 10. Feedback 10
- 11. XLS FORM TO TMS 11
- 13. Suppliers Motivation Rating – Pay Scale Connection Rating Pay Scale 4.5 to 5 8 to 10 shells/word 4 to 4.5 6 to 8 shells/word 3.5 to 4 4 to 6 shells/word 13
- 14. Creating a Linguistic Rating of a Project Translator’s rating 4.2 Monolingual proof + 0.2 Bilingual proof + 0.3 Bilingual + subject + 0.5 matter proof 4.2 + 0.3 = 4.5 3.7 + 0.2 = 3.9 3.7 + 0.5 = 4.2 14
- 15. PM Motivation Statistics Project Number Average Manager of projects projects rating Andrew 185 4.45 PM Helen, Jan-Jul 2012 Anna 182 4.50 Helen 206 4.57 Kirill 197 4.60 All projects by PM, May 12 15
- 16. PM Motivation KPI + Salary: ¥1000 x 102.12% = ¥ 1021 16
- 17. Skills Management Subject Areas 17
- 18. Skills Management Tools Form: Statistics: 18
- 19. Who Manages the System? 19
- 20. Well-known QA InText QA Feedback models model Q&A Department Skills TMS management Rating-Pay Translator’s Scale rating connection Linguistic PM motivation rating of a project 20
- 21. Requirements Regional Language Vendor Suppliers = Freelancers Trusted editors Q&A department 1 year Involvement of upper management 21
- 22. Results Company’s point of view 4. Linguistic quality 1. Rational payments rating of projects 2. Stop collaborating with low-quality 5. Motivated PMs translators 3. Checking editors’ 6. Past knowledge is performance accessible to new employees 22
- 23. Results Freelancer’s point of view Shows how his quality impacts the rate A translator knows how he has performed and what areas he should improve Top freelancers get special bonuses 23
- 25. New Challenges Subjectivity • Different marks for one and the same mistake 25
- 27. New Challenges Lack of Labor Subjectivity transparency intensive • Different marks • Translators • Transferring for one and the would like to scores and same mistake monitor and comments from • Subjective compare their Excel to TMS scores and ratings • Sending lots of pass/fail • Impossibility of emails with judgment completing the feedback form for the entire volume of text 27
- 28. Solution InText QA Model 2.0 1. Edit the text 2. Compare the translated and edited files 28
- 29. InText QA Model 2.0 29
- 30. InText QA Model 2.0 5. Obtain results: a TQI and 8 skill-scores 30
- 31. Same Mistakes = Same Scores = Same Ratings: Repeatability and Predictability 31
- 32. Thank you for your attention! Any questions? Valentyna Kozlova qa@intext.ru