LSPs Are Well Positioned for CI/CD Review Cycles

Companies growing their lineup of tech products face unique challenges when it comes to localization. They need to release new features and content in the company's native language with great frequency to delight their customers and stay ahead of the competition.

They also need to develop workflows for pushing said new content into a translation-friendly environment. Linguists need access to that environment. Their translation work has to be done quickly, reviewed, and then pulled back into the company's back end systems for testing and publication (or publishing over-the-air). It takes a lot of coordination to do CI/CD well.

The question that companies face is whether to hire internal resources or use a third-party LSP to do this. Certainly hiring a localization manager and senior linguists in key locales is essential. Depending on the size of the localization program, there could be numerous internal roles. No argument there. However, LSPs that meet certain requirements can be a wise move in terms of turnaround times, costs, and quality.

Prerequisites  

First, there are a few requirements that the LSP must meet to be considered a trusted partner for reviews. LSPs who meet these requirements are signaling to the marketplace that they are mature and have the know-how to get the job done right. In my view, these are non-negotiable. Let's go through each one.

1. Translators not fungible. The LSP assigns the same linguists to the same customers' projects. Consistent exposure to the core product(s), updates, new features and announcements over months and years turns the LSP's linguistic team into an extension of the company's. In short, the LSP doesn't use the 'best translator'. It uses the 'same best translator' over and over. This is an immensely important point.
   (LSPs who boast 100,000+ translators in their database often swap out one for another based on metrics. You'll pay less for their service.)
2. Mature technology. The LSP has invested heavily in technology that facilitates online collaboration. There is a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities in their system. Automated notifications and rich-text commenting enhances communication, and the platforms allows for the secure sharing of data. The mature technology constitutes a foundation on top of which translation processes can be executed in support of agile development cycles.
3. Feedback  welcome. In the early stages of the relationship with the customer, the LSP pro-actively encourages direct contact with the company's existing linguists and writers. The reviews materially accelerate the LSP's ability to learn brand identity, core values, and product details. The feedback in turn puts the linguists in a position to consistently meet the customer's quality and stylistic expectations.
4. Backup translators. Life happens to the best of us. People get sick, go on vacation, or get overwhelmed by certain projects or at certain times of the year. In anticipation of bottlenecks, the LSP pre-emptively trains linguists who can more than adequately fill the shoes of the regular linguists and are able to cover in a pinch.
5. Tapering off. The LSP sets up the program with the intention that the time and effort required by the customer's language experts will attenuate over time. After the initial round or two, feedback will be enshrined in translation memory files, glossaries with context-rich annotations, reference materials, and the deliverables themselves.

Let's proceed, keeping the above requirements in mind.

Proximity Begets Speed

So, is there any practical difference between an internal resource versus a third-party LSP when small, quick changes need to be translated? Consider: The start of the process is a trigger of some kind.

• An email from the localization manger.
• An automated email notification or webhook from a TMS.
• A comment on a string or project in a TMS.
• A phone call.
• A Slack, Teams, or text message.

Whatever the case may be, the trigger is digital. It doesn't matter if the recipient is sitting a few cubicles away or living in Melbourne.  

The LSP is just as reachable. In fact, the LSP will have a team monitoring for notifications, whereas your go-to team member might be in meetings all day, working from home, sick, or OOO. The built-in redundancy in the LSP's localization program ensures a quick response.

Plus, the task itself will all but certainly live in a cloud-based TMS. The next step for the assignee of the translation will be to log in, access the project, evaluate the requirements, and perform the task.

Is there an advantage to an internal resource doing this as opposed to a trusted vendor?  

Proximity Begets Knowledge

Internal resources will likely be able to contact the technical writers and developers as they are co-workers within the same organization. Through meetings, internal training sessions, and even water cooler talk, an internal linguist has a strong advantage at first. This is true.

However, there are mitigating factors. Firstly, I know from firsthand experience that developers' time and exposure is protected. They travel in a different orbit and as a result, meaningful co-training exercises are rare. And if they do take place, an LSP under NDA could just as easily read and learn from the training materials.

But what if the product manager tacks in a new direction? The content verbiage shifts in unexpected ways? Would in-house translators be the best option?

Maybe. First, remember that the process to produce localized products includes resource-rich language assets. Translation memories, glossaries, style guides, and reference materials guide an LSP's linguists as they do their work.

More importantly, a successful product is built on core principles and values. The resulting features are a manifestation thereof, with expressions and turns of phrase that will change in their specifics but remain directionally consistent over time. You can give it a fresh coat of paint but it's still a living room.

If the phraseology, concepts, and messaging of a product is changing so radically that even the above-mentioned language assets (and concomitant experience) aren't enough for an experienced external linguist to follow, then one has to wonder if the company in question is going through a rebranding exercise (or maybe even having an identity crisis). In that case, certainly. Internal resources will be your best bet.

Otherwise, seasoned linguists can without question capably learn the 'vibe' of the product, even one iterating at fast pace.

Security

A company doing modern CI/CD localization workflows will almost certainly vet their translation technology provider before starting. Many TMSs these days are certified under ISO 27001 (managing information security), SOC2 (System and Organization Controls 2, which is a type of audit report that attests to the trustworthiness of services provided by a service organization), and the like.

In other words, the tech providers have spent tens of thousands of dollars to harden their systems in the cloud. So, there are ways to design multi-stakeholder programs in those systems that are not only sufficient, but sometimes even more secure than keeping the system behind a firewall given the risk of social engineering.

Financial

A sticking point to using an external vendor is cost. The LSP will likely charge a minimum fee. I would venture to say that the LSP has no choice but to do so for a few reasons:

1. It allows the LSP to pay their linguists fairly. Why? Well, paying one of their best translators $0.78 for a few words 9 - 10x/month is a sure fire way to lose them.  
2. It conditions the customer to be judicious about pushing localization updates. There is often a cadence somewhere between 'ideal' and 'too slow' that meets the company's needs.
3. If a good cadence can be achieved, the LSP will do it's best to bypass the minimum fee as well. Win-win.

Over the long term, the cost of using the third-party LSP will level out and likely be quite a bit more affordable than hiring full-time employees.

Conclusion

Nothing is ever absolute in the world of localization. As mentioned at the outset, there are essential roles to be hired internally to do CI/CD localization successfully. And in fact, using internal resources for certain functions will indeed be the wisest move.

My objective for writing this article, however, is to evolve the industry's thinking. An LSP who meets the requirements stated above can be in a very strong position to affordably support a company's agile dev schedule and help that company grow it's global audience.