top of page
  • Writer's pictureRick White - Director of Client Services

Make the most of your In-Country Review process! (Part 2 of 2)

In my last post, I explained a little bit about why you should involve your translation vendor as part of your In-Country Review (ICR) process. If you’re convinced that you should implement a formal review process with your translation vendor, and now you want to know how, this is the blog for you! Obviously, the most important step is to discuss it with your vendor as well as with your in-country resources. At Language Intelligence, there are two different methods that we recommend to manage the review process. As mentioned in our previous post, this review step usually takes place after translation and review, but prior to final formatting.

The Basic Method

Depending on the type of content you have, your preliminary file will be provided as either a Microsoft Word document or as a PDF. This is because most reviewers will be able to easily work in these formats, and there is also the ability to track changes, which is of utmost importance. After receiving the file, the reviewer then adds their suggested changes as comments (PDF) or as tracked changes (MS Word). The linguist involved with the project then implements the changes as appropriate prior to delivery. This is the most common method that many translation vendors will use to implement a basic ICR process.

Pros: Reviewers have the ability to view content in a familiar format. It’s a relatively easy way to begin to implement the process. Changes can be tracked.

Cons: There may be a cost involved with preliminary formatting. It takes time to go from PDF comments or MS Word tracked changes to fully implemented changes. The translation memory must be updated manually. It may be difficult to maintain version control and you may need to email files back and forth.

intellireview™ Method

Developed in-house at Language Intelligence, our intellireview™ tool was initially developed to allow reviewers to easily view large technical manuals in their final format, and allow linguists to more easily implement needed changes. However, the tool will work for other types of content as well (it’s been especially helpful for reviewing translated surveys). Any XML-formatted content will appear in its final, formatted version. Other types of content can be viewed in a 2-column layout/English side-by-side with translation. As a browser-based tool, reviewers and linguists can log in and make changes without having to download anything. All changes are tracked automatically and the translation memory is immediately updated. The interface is designed to be user friendly, and we are always happy to provide a demonstration of the tool.

Pros: Reviewers have the ability to view XML content in final format. Reviewers can easily compare translation to original English source. There is usually no additional formatting cost involved. Version control is easily maintained. Translation memory is updated automatically, and the tool is extremely user friendly.

Cons: Change can be tough. Reviewers may be hesitant to learn how to use a new tool at first. However, as soon as they see how much easier it is, they won’t want to go back to the old way!

Implementing a standard ICR process may seem challenging at first, but our goal is to make it easy. Whether you choose to go with the more basic method or to fully implement intellireview™ technology, putting these processes in place along with some guidelines will have you well on your way to cost savings and increased consistency.


bottom of page