Earlier this week, the European IT and Certification Institute, a for-profit limited liability company that is also developing translation management software, sent an e-mail blast about its List of High Quality Translation Companies. According to the Institute, the goal of the list is “to promote translation companies which have implemented either standard ISO 9001:2000 or EN 15038:2006.” In other words, if an LSP has the ISO or EN certification, it is deemed to be a translation company of “high quality.” This isn’t the first attempt by a vendor of language services and support software to produce a list of organizations that have met a certain criteria. We’ve commented in the Global Watchtower about the plethora of lists, guides, and catalogs of “high-quality” or “certified” LSPs. The problem? In reality, a certification or standard is not necessarily the be-all, end-all when it comes to quality. For example, in our 2006 report on the supply-side outlook of language services, our poll of 266 translation agencies found that just 10 percent of LSPs held ISO certification. Does this mean that only one in every ten LSPs is capable of delivering good quality? We don’t think so. Anyone who has ever attended our tongue-in-cheek presentation, “Quality Doesn’t Matter,” a perennial discussion-starter at industry conferences, knows our viewpoint on this matter — quality is relative. As such, lists of high-quality companies are relative too, especially when the only criterion is whether or not a given standard is being followed. Admittedly, we do have a horse of our own in this race. After many companies asked us to serve as an independent source of information about LSPs — something we were already doing anyway — we developed The Orange Book, a virtual directory of language services companies. We took a financial auditor’s approach to the question of certification — checking a company’s compliance to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Our program looks for “a” process that is used consistently and constantly throughout an LSP’s organization. That process can be ISO, defined by a client, internally developed, or any combination of these. Regardless of where people turn to find good companies to work with, the notion of quality — of both translation and the companies that provide it — is often vague and subjective. Rather than try to tackle the impossible task of what quality means to each and every LSP and buyer on the planet, we’re taking a more segmented approach. In a forthcoming report on buyer-defined ideas about quality, we will analyze quality exclusively from the buyer’s perspective. We’re currently conducting interviews with major buyers of translation — most of whom spend in excess of US$1 million annually on translation — in seven key industries. We’re also conducting a broader survey of both buyers and suppliers to get as much input as we can about the topic. Would you like to participate?
Share or tag this post on: |
|
