Tag: TMS

Towards the end of the semester we had the opportunity to hear from the CTO of a web based TMS. Apart from giving us a thorough introduction into the various functionalities found within their TMS, the CTO also encouraged us to share any feedback on ways to improve the TMS. While similar to the TMS comparison project done earlier in the year, this time we had a real life client come to us seeking our insights.

Consulting 101

First we would need to confirm the needs of the client, research possible solutions, and professionally present our recommendations to the client. With my group, we discussed the common features and functionalities that TMS systems have, and which of those could be beneficial to our client’s TMS. Or, if said client’s TMS already had those functionalities, how can they be further improved.

Personalization

Having worked with SDL WorldServer, GlobalLink, and Lingotek, all three TMS systems provide some sort of customization ability. This was most apparent with workflows. Workflows are key to operational efficiency. Being able to customize a workflow lets the PM choose the type of translation and a review process that closely matches the content being translated. During my review of the client’s TMS, I noticed there wasn’t any way to customize workflows. The user selects a document type (four to choose from) and only one workflow appears for those four documents.

I would advocate for the client’s TMS to allow for customization of the project workflow. Being able to customize a workflow would let the PM choose the type of translation and a review process that closely matches the content being translated. Certain clients may have projects that use workflows with minimal steps. For example, a workflow for machine translation may not require several rounds of review. It could just be a machine translation with PEMT.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to allow for the customization of document types. Allowing PMs to customize the document type to better represent the types of documents they receive from their clients. There may be niche areas that have different rates, such as as business or website translation.

Being able to personalize a TMS will increase efficiency, ensure maximum optimization of resources, and cut down unwarranted wastage.

Per the Global and Localization Association (GALA), Translation Management System (TMS) “automates the translation process, makes it more controllable, and eliminates repetitive tasks.” TMS offers functionality in process automation, language automation, and business automation. This semester in groups we were tasked with comparing two TMS systems – SDL WorldServer and GlobalLink. Through the course of this project I gained greater insight into what needs to considered when selecting a TMS.

How do you even select a TMS?

Selecting a TMS encompasses a myriad of factors, whether it be stakeholders or budget, there is a lot to consider. The key is to not get overwhelmed with the finer details. There first should be a general understanding of what your needs are and how those needs affect different stakeholders. I recommend using RWS Moravia’s “Six Steps to Choosing the Right Translation Management System” to kick-off this process. (Click here to see the Moravia article)

They listed the following six steps to help choose the right TMS:

• Identify all the stakeholders
• Gather stakeholder requirements
• Sort requirements by functional areas
• Sort ‘must-haves’ from ‘nice-to-haves’
• Requests demos*
• Evaluate, pilot, go!

Before going through the six steps, my group decided we would be using the perspective of a new small-sized LSP looking to purchase their first TMS.

Stakeholders

• Translators/Reviewers (T/R)
• Engineers (E)
• DTP
• PM
• Sales (S)
• Vendor Management (VM)
• Upper Management (UP)

Stakeholder Requirements (‘must-haves’ & ‘nice-to-haves’)

These requirements were broken down by being Useful (U), Important (I), and Critical (C) and linked to their respective stakeholders.

Functional Areas

From there we divided these requirements between four categories: 1) Linguistic (Linguists), 2) Technical (Engineer), Workflow Management (PM), Business Management (Upper Management).

Understanding what the critical and important needs were key to us being able to properly analyze SDL WorldServer and GlobalLink.

Evaluate, pilot, go!

Each member of our group took time to review the two TMS systems against our stakeholder requirements. While we didn’t have a specific pilot project in mind, we agreed that creating a project within SDL WorldServer and GlobalLink could be the basis for our evaluation.

After calculating the averages via Excel, the averages of our scores were placed within the Critical, Important, and Useful categories.

Who won?

In the end, there wasn’t a significant difference between SDL World Server and GlobalLink. There was a slight difference in the Critical Sum, but nothing that would impede our fictional LSP from selecting one TMS system over the other. In order to solidify the best choice, best practice would be to run distinct translation projects that could shed more light on each TMS systems strengths and weaknesses.

Click here here to see our final presentation and a more in depth analysis of the differences between SDL WorldServer and GlobalLink.