Opening talk: Quality Evaluation at the EU - Angelika Vaasa (European Parliament)
-
Upload
taus-enabling-better-translation -
Category
Presentations & Public Speaking
-
view
327 -
download
0
Transcript of Opening talk: Quality Evaluation at the EU - Angelika Vaasa (European Parliament)
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
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
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 ;
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