Organizational approaches for localization within large companies are many and varied. No one approach is “right”; each one has strengths and weaknesses. But despite all the variations, most approaches are either centralized (a single organization managing localization for the company) or decentralized (localization taking place in a variety of groups throughout the company). This article, based on the author's recent presentation at a SimulTrans Forum, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches and then suggests a third option.

Centralized Approach

Centralized localization groups are frequently part of general service organizations. For example, the organization may provide printing and publishing, media duplication, technical writing and other functions that are needed by many lines of business. In theory, centralized organizations are in a good position to provide cost-effective services. In practice, this may not be the end result.

Advantages to Centralization

Many potential advantages exist for centralized localization groups, but actual success depends on how a group is managed.

Centralization provides several advantages in key areas. Because centralized groups support a high volume of projects, they may be in a better position to negotiate vendor pricing, achieve volume discounts and track corporate costs. Rather than focusing on the terminology needed only for a particular product line or a component type, centralized groups can develop a corporate approach to glossary management. They can also leverage work across business units.

Finding people to review translated materials quickly is always a challenge. Centralized groups are in a better position to find and utilize in-country reviewers and to set up quality review processes. These groups may also be better able to establish and follow QA processes. Finally, centralized groups have the ability to pool staff resources, such as linguists, administrative support, QA personnel and engineers, who may not be funded in decentralized organizations.

Disadvantages to Centralization

As with the advantages, these areas are usually disadvantages to centralization. Once again, success depends upon how the group is managed and funded.

Since centralized localization groups support a number of product lines, they can't focus too closely on any one product. This leads to poor product familiarity on the part of the staff. Not knowing a product very well makes it harder to answer vendor questions and to resolve issues. And because multiple product lines are supported, the group's connection to product teams and commitment to individual project goals tend to be weak. A “just another client” mentality might develop. Since the centralized group's management structure is not tied to product development, accountability is not as direct. Performance evaluations may not be tied to product success.

Centralized groups must prioritize projects, resources and funding. Project teams have no control over where their projects end up in the priority list. They may not get to choose the people who work on their projects or how much time those people can devote. Centralized groups also try to apply their processes uniformly to all projects; however, localization projects vary significantly depending on the product makeup and requirements. If one set of processes is applied to all projects, the specific needs of a project may be hard to meet.

Centralized groups don't have good tie-ins to individual group version control systems and build processes. With so many companies trying to achieve Capability Maturity Model compliance, process grows increasingly important. The further away from the development community the localization function is, the harder it becomes to mesh processes. The central localization group must address file issues with each client: Who maintains files for historical purposes? Will the client organization modify localized files after they have been delivered? How will modifications feed back to the central organization?

Converting to a centralized approach forces organizations to change how they have traditionally done business. Forcing change can result in culture shock and resentment. Some centralized groups have a “do it my way” mentality, and this creates problems.

Faced with some of these disadvantages, client groups may become disillusioned. Poorly managed centralized approaches often result in development organizations rebelling and running projects on their own.

Decentralized Approach

Decentralized approaches to localization are much more common. In this scenario, localization occurs throughout the company in places such as development/engineering organizations, marketing groups, technical writing centers and training departments. Decentralized localization usually supports one line of business, product type or component type (such as software, training, packaging or marketing materials).

Advantages

The advantages of decentralized localization management tend to be solid rather than potential. When the people managing localization activities are part of the development group, they have a good understanding of the products and their needs. They are usually surrounded by information about the product: how and why the product is created, the challenges and restrictions related to the product and the people involved. This puts them in a position to make better decisions.

The close connection to project teams tends to result in development of esprit de corps. Communication of critical issues, product changes and risks is faster and more complete. Since the localization staff is accountable to the people managing product development, their careers have a more direct link to results. The clients they serve are more than “just another customer.”

When localization management takes place within product development, it is much easier to use established build processes and version control systems. Optimally, localization is part of a “global product delivery” strategy with version control systems playing an essential role in the localization process.

Because localization efforts focus on a fairly narrow group of items, it is easier to build custom solutions to problems. For example, a packaging group might need extremely quick turnaround and good methods for dealing with small amounts of text. A group handling fast-paced software releases might need to develop special methods for managing QA of translated applications. The advantage is obvious: clients receive better, faster and individually tailored solutions to their problems.

Disadvantages

Since localization takes place in a scattered manner throughout a company, decentralized localization management includes a risk of redundancy and nonstandard results in several areas. Other areas of disadvantage are the review process, project processes and quality assurance.

Individual groups using a variety of localization vendors may be less able to negotiate prices or achieve volume discounts. Also, they may have difficulty finding and making effective use of in-country reviewers. Some groups may not be able to find any reviewers at all, thereby creating a quality risk.

With decentralized localization, each group may create its own forms, templates, agreements and systems. Along with these processes, each group must develop its own method for problem reporting and tracking and must staff the testing effort.

Decentralized localization means a duplication of effort for maintaining glossaries. This may result in nonstandard terminology being used. It is possible multiple groups could provide localized materials for a single product, each group useing different localization vendors and terminology. This is clearly ineffective from a resource, cost and quality perspective.

For example, packaging and training departments frequently support more than one product line. Terminology on packages could be the same from product to product; but if a different group is managing localization for the product itself, terminology will be different inside the box. The same is true when separate groups localize marketing materials, training and so forth. In this scenario, every box, brochure and CD looks the same. But when you put the product together, what do you have? A mess! Decentralized localization frequently results in a terminology nightmare.

The Distributed Model

The distributed model for localization attempts to take advantage of the strengths of the other two approaches while minimizing the weaknesses. The approach consists of a central organization and distributed hubs or areas of localization activity. The positioning and roles of hubs depend on the needs of the company. A group of software developers managing localization for their development work could be a hub; a technical writing organization might be a hub for localization of printed materials. In large companies, all these hubs might exist simultaneously, turning to the central organization for certain services. The concept of the distributed approach is based on the central group and hubs performing those activities that truly add value to the process.

Central Organization Roles

The central organization handles functions that require a single focal point. For example, a glossary management system can be centrally developed and deployed to the hubs.

The central group also can establish corporate pricing structures with the hubs enjoying discounted prices; can develop processes, forms and templates for use by the hubs when managing projects; can provide training to the hubs which improve the overall level of expertise; and can act as a depository for localized items.

Management visibility and intervention are roles that can be handled by the central organization. The education of management and project teams are important tasks for localization groups. In some situations, project teams can't or won't listen, and the central group can step in to provide support.

The central group is in a better position to track localization costs for the entire company, thus providing a better look at spending. Costs can be broken out by product line, component type, internal versus external spending, language or other factors. The central group can also act as a clearinghouse for evaluating internationalization and localization tools. Hubs can ask for recommendations and help in purchasing and deploying the tools.

The evaluation and qualification of a vendor base can be made by the central group; however, it is critical that hubs have input and are able to select the vendors they want to use. Individual product and project types have unique needs, and some vendors are better at meeting those needs than others. For example, a group which creates marketing materials may not want to use the same vendor that a group developing software might need. The expertise offered by various vendors is completely different, and the central group should not dictate which vendor to choose.

Finally, the central group can provide an in-country review process for hubs that need it. Also, some organizations may conduct localization infrequently and may not have their own hubs. The central group can provide project management services for these organizations.

Hub Roles

Hubs function on a decentralized level and deal with locale-specific activities. They participate on product teams, attend meetings, gather requirements and act as the liaison between teams and localization vendors. They also perform day-to-day project management activities and use the tools that the central group evaluates, recommends and deploys.

Besides vendor selection, localization hubs manage vendor interactions, such as holding project meetings, following up on problems, answering questions and establishing schedules. The hubs also gather files from clients and pass them along to the vendors. Ideally, these tasks are tied in to the development organization's version control system.

Hubs work closely with project teams and are in the best position to gather information about upcoming projects. Hubs gather workload forecasts for their organizations and feed them up to the central group for corporate forecasting. While the centralized organization manages glossaries for the corporation as a whole, the hubs use the glossaries and provide updates as projects are completed.

Advantages

One of the biggest advantages of the distributed approach is that it doesn't force existing cultures to change. Decentralized hubs can exist primarily as they did before, but can draw from the resources of the central group. While some change will still be required, the degree is much less traumatic. Hopefully, the benefits are obvious enough that distributed groups will want to work cooperatively. In addition, the distributed approach offers all of the advantages of the decentralized model and most of the advantages of the centralized model.

Disadvantages

The disadvantages of the distributed localization approach include increased overhead costs, a need for management support, and increased cooperation between the company’s levels. The central organization is essentially overhead. Charging costs back to specific projects may be difficult, and this makes justifying the group’s existence significantly harder. Since the central group provides services to a number of lines of business, high-level management support is required to see the vision of this approach and make it happen.

In order for the distributed localization approach to work successfully, people in the central group and the hubs must work together cooperatively. Information must be shared, and both groups must understand and respect the value of what the other side provides. If the hubs don’t make use of the central group’s services, the group is a waste of money, and if the central group is too heavy-handed in its dealings with the hubs, the hubs won’t use it.

That’s All Well and Good, But...

Most of us aren’t in a position to make structural changes like this happen. Even so, we can work as a slow, steady influence on decision-makers. Any approach to localization management can be successful if people work together, communicate and share common goals. Similarly, all approaches will fail if not handled well. Simply put, there is no “right” solution or structure; you must evaluate your company’s situation and then decide on the best approach.