They define five levels:
- Reactive L10N: Lots of tiny 'islands' within one organization buy localization
without any synchronization. They look for the nearest
shop around the corner, and buy their services with
little to no knowledge of process or available technologies.
- Repeatable L10N: An internal project management team starts to bring order to
chaos.
- Managed L10N: Managers discover the cost of localization and the benefits
of planning.
- Optimized L10N: Automation and more sophisticated tools enter the stage; efforts
become more centralized.
- Transparent L10N: Localization becomes an integral part of product development.
The brief level descriptions
I share here reflect my own interpretation. For details,
please read the full paper; it is well worth the effort!
It is not my intention to discuss their levels, but to
offer some additional ideas based on CSA’s concepts.
The white paper describes
how a localization buyer evolves from ad hoc solutions
at Level 1 through more and more advanced processes, to
a full integration of localization into production. People
within companies buying localization can use the white
paper for self-assessment purposes (“Where are my gaps
and what do I need to do in order to close them?”) and
management education purposes (“Why is localization so
costly and what can we do in order to make it cost efficient?”).
However, as I represent a supplier, I would like to start
with the man in the mirror and ask:
What about the
supplier side?
You could, of course,
argue that the progression of the buyer side is the determining
factor of success[2],
but that would already assume a certain level of maturity
on the supplier side. When I take a look around that is
not so obvious to me! Localization buyers often seem to
have similar doubts, since they tend to ask the larger
vendors for their services assuming a higher degree of
maturity comes with size. So I would like to propose maturity
levels on the supplier side as a mirror image of the CSA
levels:
- Reactive L10N: Take everything at face value from the client and just translate
it.
- Repeatable L10N: Introduce basic tools like Translation Memory and assign project
management tasks to translators.
- Managed L10N: Use well-trained, specialized project managers (e.g. PMI certified)
and well-defined processes.
- Optimized L10N: Look for automation everywhere.
- Transparent L10N: Integrate all of your processes into the client's world.
The Localization
Maturity Model (LMM) Phases
Source: Common Sense
Advisory, Inc.
I realize these levels
need some polishing and thinking. Take them as a first
attempt after a brief reflection. Nevertheless, they show
that companies on the supplier side have to climb a ladder,
too. In the scope of this article, a thorough discussion
as in CSA’s paper clearly is out of the question, but
here are a few details:
Level 1
New companies, often
founded by a group of translators, clearly are in Reactive
Mode: they need to accept every job they can get from
their clients and do what they are told to do with the
content. This includes word processors and TMs to be used.
This is a typical situation with translation companies
serving verticals such as the mechanical engineering industry
or with single-language vendors (SLVs) acting as subcontractors
to multi-language vendors (MLVs).
Level 2
While growing and gaining
more experience, these companies introduce the concept
of TMs and terminology databases to clients who happen
to be at Level 1 and, at the same time, start a specialization
process: some of their people focus on project management,
some on linguistic issues, and others even take on the
daunting task of engineering. At this level, the vendor
typically starts to work for larger clients and/or software
publishers directly (not only through MLVs).
Level 3
Processes become better
defined (in writing!) and differentiated (there is not
just one process for every localization job). Specialists
are brought in from the outside in order to improve certain
tasks: PM, DTP, engineering, audio… This is a typical
industrialization step: companies, can only grow beyond
certain sizes when they introduce more and more specialization.
Level
4
Many process steps are
automated, at first by macros, scripts and small applications
written by employees or freelancers, but then also by
workflow tools, database applications, etc. bought for
specific purposes or specific clients. At this level,
automation of processes is well documented in contrast
to the ad hoc use of macros and scripts characteristic
of the previous levels.
Level 5
Technologies and processes
are completely aligned to customer’s needs in order to
enable a full integration necessary e.g. to deal with
large, frequently changing volumes of content, such as
consumer web sites for telecom companies or support web
sites (keywords: CMS, GMS, centralized linguistic assets,
etc.). Interestingly enough, the role of the localization
vendor clearly changes from level to level. In Level 1,
there is a distinct master/servant relationship: the buyer
tells the supplier what to do. Over the next levels, the
vendor’s role increasingly includes consulting tasks leading
to a more active role of the vendor. And in Level 5, the
localization vendor truly becomes a partner of the localization
buyer.
So what does it all mean
or has it a meaning at all? I believe it does have meaning.
Hence, I would like to open up three topics for discussion:
A. Is the sum
of the maturity levels on both sides a potential measure
of success?
At first sight, this
is tempting: a mature buyer can afford to use a less mature
supplier, at least for non-critical projects or projects
of lesser scale. On the other hand, a mature supplier
can work well with a less mature buyer (at the cost of
higher efforts).
If you take a closer
look, there is a third dimension: the complexity of the
project itself. Thus you could ask whether a sum of maturity
levels of – let us say - 6 would be sufficient to solve
a localization complexity of Level 2 (however that is
defined). This seems to be a bit academic, but please
take another look after having read topic C.
B. Is there a
direct link between the size of a localization vendor
and its maturity level?
Again, the easy answer
seems to be ‘yes’. For example, it is virtually impossible
for a small company to become truly integrated with the
client, at least in scenarios as described above. On the
other hand, a small company run by experienced people
can easily reach Level 4 (or even 5 in the case of moderately-sized
projects).
C. Could the
maturity levels evolve to something that delivers more
realistic metrics for the “quality” of a localization
provider than existing ISO or EN standards?
This is the most exciting
topic to me: ISO 9000 standards are directed towards production
companies and thus do not really cover service companies.
(Yes, I know, they can be and are applied to service companies,
but there is a lot of arm twisting going on in order to
get there). And the new EU standard for translation quality
contains some rather unrealistic requirements in view
of today’s practices and expectations.
A maturity level, on
the other hand, could give buyers a realistic image of
the consistent quality levels they can expect from a certain
supplier and probably of the cost level, too.
I also see another opportunity
that might prove to be even more important. Traditionally,
localization vendors like to complain that their role
is underestimated, that localization is an afterthought,
and of course that the low value attributed to localization
leads to an insufficient reimbursement of their labor.
Well-defined maturity
levels could render it much easier to describe the role,
tasks, and processes of localization vendors to ‘outsiders’.
So instead of telling a potential client, “We are performing
translation plus a lot of additional tasks” or creating
a nice marketing story that unfortunately has no real
meaning to the client and hence does not explain anything,
a reference to established LMMs (localization maturity
levels) could make the explanation meaningful and professional
at the same time.
