QUALITY EVALUATION IN THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT TRANSLATION SERVICEAngelika Vaasa, Quality Manager

Directorate-General for Translation

European Parliament

22DAY IN THE LIFE OF AN EP TRANSLATOR

https://www.facebook.com/europeanparliament/videos/10156660226830107/?_rdr=p&business_id=101553

53013930107

33EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2015

660 translators

1.8 million translated pages

2010

770 translators

1.7 million translated pages

44OUR MISSION

24 originals +

communication with citizens

=>

high quality requirements

55HOW TO COPE?

↓ in-house translators

+

↑ translated pages

= externalization

What about high quality?

66QUALITY POLICY

Quality Assurance

Quality

Control

• People (training, thematic groups)

• Processes (Safe Working Protocols)

• Tools

• Ex-ante checks (revision)

• Ex-post checks (QE)

77QUALITY EVALUATION

Random spot-checks Checks on external

translations

WHY? To map overall situation and

identify structural/recurring

problems

To monitor external

contractors performance

WHAT? 10 samples (each 3 pages) One sample of 5 pages

WHEN? Once a month Per number of pages

externalised

WHO? Quality Coordinators of

translation units

Evaluators of external

translations

HOW? Manual, Excel table to record

results

Word macro

88CHALLENGE 1: COST-EFFECTIVENESS

How much is enough?

How to guarantee the necessary quality of external

translations without significant extra costs?

How can we make best use of the results of QE?

How does the purpose of QE affect the comparability of

results?

99CHALLENGE 2: CONSISTENCY

Regular quality checks

Limited number of evaluators: 24 Quality Coordinators (+

teams of evaluators)

Jointly agreed evaluation guidelines (living document)

Meetings, discussions… and more discussions

1010CHALLENGE 3: POOR ORIGINALS

1111CHALLENGE 3: POOR ORIGINALS

Draft opinion

Paragraph 2

Draft opinion Amendment

2. Notes that while several EU delegations to Iran have focused on trade

and economic ties, the delegation from the

Commission did not include the Trade

Commissioner;

2. Notes that while several EU delegations to Iran have focused on trade

and economic ties, the latest comprising

EU High Representative/Vice President

and seven Commissioners ;

1212CHALLENGE 4: USER/CLIENT PERSPECTIVE

1313CHALLENGE 4: USER/CLIENT PERSPECTIVE

Fitness-for-purpose

suitability for agreed purpose

suitability for intended use

ability to satisfy the stated and implied needsand expectations of the requester and end-users

How can we score it and scale it?

1414CHALLENGE 4: USER/CLIENT PERSPECTIVE

Author: “a badly flawed translation”, “contained several

errors”, “deplorable waste of taxpayers’ money”

Translators: “... in some instances the translation could be

stylistically better formulated. However, significant errors or

mistranslations that would affect the meaning of the text have

not been found.”

1515CHALLENGE 4: USER/CLIENT PERSPECTIVE

“End-user”: “Macedonian progress“ and „Macedonian public

administration“ are translated as „the country’s progress“ and

„the country’s public administration“ in the Greek version. An

inaccurate translation can cause significant problems...“

Translators: “We could not in fact use the existing adjective in

the Greek language... because for a Greek reader, the

adjective „Macedonian“ refers to the Region of Macedonia in

northern Greece and not to FYROM”

1616TO SUM UP...

How much of QE is enough / cost-effective?

How should QE take into account the quality of original?

How can we identify/judge “purpose” and “use” of translations in QE?

How could client/user feedback (incl complaints) be integrated into QE system?

How can comparability become a reality? Is a quality-related KPI actually feasible?

1717

THANK YOU!

www.europarl.europa.eu

epsocial.eu/eponsocial

facebook.com/europeanparliament

@europarl_en

Snapchat: europarl