Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing 
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing 
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing 
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing 
Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing Manufacturing 

Post info

Share this post

Translation Management: Are You Buying the Solution You Need?

When discussing your needs with a vendor from any sector or background, it is not unusual to feel tempted by the latest, ‘best-in-class’ solution. Sometimes, you may feel tempted to switch even though you already have robust quality processes overseen by fantastic staff. The sales representative promises you radical benefits, citing technical improvements, and offers the carrot of significant cost savings in return for the necessary internal upheaval. But is it worth the time, effort, and investment? Sadly, the answer is often no.

If It Sounds Too Good To Be True, It Probably Is

Every year, large and well-known corporations embark on ambitious upgrades to their content management systems and processes, often spending vast budgets and expending considerable resources, only to fall short of their grand targets. 

The failure is not due to a lack of effort by the bright and competent people responsible for managing these implementations. In many cases, overpromising by partner vendors had set them up to fail. The companies had purchased solutions they did not need or, worse, fallen for a false bill of goods. Promised solutions that would save money, they found themselves locked into further expense further down the line instead. How can this be avoided?

Choose the Service You Need, Not the One You Are Sold

It is also not uncommon for customers in the language services industry to receive drastically different quotes from vendors. 

In one recent instance, a company from the defense and aerospace industry contacted Protranslating for a quote to produce a parts catalog. We undertook due diligence for the project, including interviewing key stakeholders to identify their precise requirements, and duly submitted the proposed fee. It was not long before the buyer called to discuss our proposal. She had received multiple proposals with price tags exceeding $100,000, yet we had quoted a quarter of that fee. She wanted to know how that could be.

We had identified in our analysis that only one section of the catalog contained dynamic information requiring custom programming (for changing variable data). The rest contained static information that dynamic PDFs could deliver more effectively. In other words, the use of links, actions, and look-up tables to rapidly provide readers with the information they need.

Rather than quote to build the entire catalog from scratch, based on a technical solution that the customer did not need, we offered a more pragmatic approach and cost. Our final deliverable was not only as equally functional as those proposed by the $100,000 vendors but could be delivered quicker and more efficiently while also fully capturing the required brand marketing ‘look and feel.’ Unsurprisingly, we got the job.

Talk to Us About Cost Savings

Protranslating, a BIG Language Company, routinely works with customers to develop efficient and cost-effective translation workflows. By analyzing your documents and existing processes, we can give rapid and practical advice that will help your company save time and money while improving translation quality. Contact us today to find out more. 

Search

Categories

Featured Content

Sign up for our Newsletter

Follow Us