... For me (as an agency manager) this underlines the importance of *in-house* quality assurance. There needs to be one individual who holds finalMessage 1 of 2 , Feb 29, 2000View Source
>There is however one great danger:� if you have a chain of "languageFor me (as an agency manager) this underlines the importance of
>workers", two, three or even more, their feeling of personal responsibility
>gets quite often lost, like, "anyway, I don�t need to translate/read/edit it
>too carefully, there are two/three/more... people after me who will take
>care of it - at least they can earn their pay."� I experienced this while
>working in a big international project on manuals with about five six people
>in line, including a univesity professor as a terminology checker - and the
>result was (in my view ) a disaster.
*in-house* quality assurance. There needs to be one individual who
holds final accountability for the quality of any given document.
When I ran an agency in Prague we practically only dealt with only
three languages (no prizes for guessing which ones), and it was no
problem having people on staff with a good knowledge of each of them.
Of course we still had to rely on outside experts for terminology on
the more technical documents. In the US I deal with a couple of dozen
languages, so it's not practical to retain staff who can handle all
of them, but I work with agency suppliers who do always have in-house
QA for their own language.