1. TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT REDEFINED from TQI to competences and suitability Demid Tishin All Correct Language Solutions www.allcorrect.ru

10. SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT (“GOOD / BAD”) Pro’s Con’s Speed Results not repeatable Results not reproducible Difficult for client and service provider to arrive at the same opinion Impossible to give detailed reasons Tells nothing of provider’s abilities

11. COMPARING WITH THE SOURCE ACCORDING TO A PARAMETER CHECKLIST Pro's Con's Some reasoning for assessment results Results not reproducible Difficult for client and service provider to arrive at the same opinion Results not repeatable Tells nothing of provider’s abilities

13. AUTOMATED COMPARISON WITH A REFERENCE TRANSLATION

14. AUTOMATED COMPARISON WITH A REFERENCE TRANSLATION Pro's Con's Speed Does not account for individual style Limited scope (today limited to MT output) Does not correlate to human assessment A number of reference translations must be prepared before assessment ( justified for batch assessment of different translations of the same source sample ) Tells nothing of provider’s abilities How should acceptability threshold be defined?

17. WEIGHING ERRORS AND CALCULATING TQI

18. WEIGHING ERRORS AND CALCULATING TQI

19. WEIGHING ERRORS AND CALCULATING TQI

21. WEIGHING ERRORS AND CALCULATING TQI Pro's Results highly reproducible ( SAE J2450 ) Results highly repeatable ( SAE J2450 ) Detailed error classifier with explanations and examples ( LISA QA Model ) Easy to use for quality feedback to providers Convenient to grade providers according to their TQI for a specific project TQI is a simple numeric index , which you can account in a database and use in your balanced scorecard , KPI’s etc.

22. WEIGHING ERRORS AND CALCULATING TQI Con's Limited scope (SAE J2450) Low reproducibility of results ( ATA Framework ) A threshold of acceptable TQI is required ( e.g. 94,5 etc. ), while clients do not tolerate any explicitly stated imperfection Assessment is time-consuming (5- 20 minutes per sample provided that the expert has carefully studied the source. Subjective or underdeveloped error weight assignment – a try at forecasting error consequences ( LISA QA Model ) Tells very little of provider’s abilities

28. IMPROVEMENT 1: TWO ERROR DIMENSIONS That’s a restaurant That’s a damn fctory That’s a factory (factual error) (2 connotative errors, though no factual errors) (source)

37. IMPROVEMENT 2: COMPETENCES

38. IMPROVEMENT 2: COMPETENCES

42. IMPROVEMENT 3: WORKFLOW ROLES

45. IMPROVEMENT 4: ERROR ALLOWABILITY

50. IMPROVEMENT 5: PROVIDER TRAINABILITY

55. EXAMPLE

56. EXAMPLE

57. EXAMPLE

58. EXAMPLE

62. QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROCESS