Project Management Integration in Translation Projects

1
Project Management Integration in Translation
Projects

• Birthe Moustenbmo_at_asb.dk

2
Project aims and contents

• Aims
• To include and evaluate project management tools
  in connection with a translation project in a
  cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary virtual team.
• Contents and participants
• A process flow involving a combination of a
  technical writing and a technical translation
  project including students from ASB and students
  from North Dakota State University.
• Form
• Computer-mediation as the virtual means of
  running the project in a virtual team email,
  skype.
• Time line
• Weeks 8-12, 2010 (please see slide with detailed
  time lines).

3
Project documents

• Project charter Specifying aims and contents,
  and major time lines in the project (please see
  slide above).
• Pre-learning reports Personal data, private
  lives, leisure time, expectations to cooperation,
  reservations about cooperation, barriers to
  overcome.
• Texts received Texts from US authors,
  informative texts, report form.
• Virtual team list A list combining the virtual
  team members in the two countries.
• Translation brief A specification form prepared
  by the translator, filled in by the technical
  writer about the intended purpose of the
  translated text.
• Work organization plan in virtual group (WBS)
  Division of work processes with deadlines
  Danish part.
• Action log A list of the work processes in the
  virtual group Danish part.
• Communication examples Examples of emails,
  etc.
• Final texts The translated texts are uploaded
  and forwarded to US students.
• Feedback comments in texts To Danish students
  from me before videoconference.
• Report On the process, the results of the
  videoconference and subsequent discussion in
  class. To students, the US teams and ?

4
Project Time Line, scheduled

• Week 8 Deadline 26th February NDSU present
  their technical documentation.
• Week 9 1-5 March ASB students work on the
  translation. Dialogue takes place between NDSU
  and ASB students via email, skype etc. according
  to the students own choice.
• Week 10 8-12th March Evaluation at seminars in
  the US and DK.
• Week 12 An online/skype (or by other means)
  seminar between the US-DK students and lecturers
  for knowledge and experience sharing. 25th March,
  2010.

5
Project Time Line, actual

• Week 8 Deadline 26th February NDSU present
  their technical documentation.
• Week 9 1-5 March ASB students work on the
  translation. Dialogue takes place between NDSU
  and ASB students via email, skype etc. according
  to the students own choice.
• Weeks 9/10 Texts arriving 5th-10th March.
• Week 10 Evaluation at seminars in the US and DK.
  8-12th March
• Weeks 10/11 Project work 10th-23rd March.
• Week 12 An online/skype (or by other means)
  seminar between the US-DK students and lecturers
  for knowledge and experience sharing. 25th March.
  
• Week 12 Videoconference with participants from
  NDSU and ASB with a discussion of the texts and
  the project 25th March.

6
Project results - project steps

• 1) The evaluations at both sides of the Atlantic
  in week 10 simply vanished from the process.
• 2) The squeeze of the time line had a tremendous,
  negative impact on the Danish students.
• 3) Some of the steps in the translation/revision
  phases either disappeared or were reduced.

7
Project results - project quality

• Varied a lot. Some very good solutions. Some
  adequate solutions. Some solutions with
  unresolved questions.
• 1) US students
• Did not proofread their texts, which meant
  unnecessary communication about trifle matters.
• Had copied bits and pieces, paragraphs, even
  almost one whole text from Wikipedia.
• 2) DK students
• Followed a translation-revision-correction
  process as far as possible. Had been trained
  throughout the previous semester for all
  assignments given, and went without problems,
  except in one example. Few errors, though
  existing.
• Communication process with US students was
  problematic. Some processes went smoothly, others
  not at all.

8
Project results culture clashes

1. US students uncertain about what was needed for
   translation major risk of misbehaviour.
2. US students made some good texts on interesting
   topics.
3. US students tried to help the translators by
   inserting a glossary with definitions after the
   text the Danish students felt spoken down to.
4. Danish students felt that US students did not
   take the task seriously.
5. Danish students felt disappointed that the US
   students had so many mistakes in their language
   with a resulting need for communication about
   clarification of matters. Danish students
   sometimes asked about linguistic clarification
   questions to spite the US writers language.
6. Danish students felt that the US students had
   stolen too much text from other sources.
7. Danish students felt proud that they had
   accomplished the task, despite!
8. Danish students felt that the US students seemed
   so young (probably contrasting view from the US).
9. Danish students felt appalled by the idea
   expressed by one US student at the
   videoconference that the US authors could check
   the quality by running it through Googles
   translator.
10. I need some more feedback from the US students to
    get a better picture of their sentiments and
    experience from the project.
11. The two fields need to know a lot more about each
    others work fields and work methods.

9
Post mortem ideas

• US students revise and proofread their texts
  before sending them.
• 2) Deadlines have to be kept.
• Communication has to be answered.
• Finding a way of giving the US students better
  insight into the results.
• Respecting the strengths and weaknesses of the
  other discipline.
• Need to move from asymmetry to symmetry and
  sympathy and symposium.
• Symmetry original Greek meaning that pieces
  have the right
• measurements, ie. can be put together.