Project Management
Integration in
Translation Projects
Birthe Mousten
bmo@asb.dk
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).
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Google’s 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.
Post mortem ideas:
1) US students revise and proofread their texts before sending
them.
2) Deadlines have to be kept.
3) Communication has to be answered.
4) Finding a way of giving the US students better insight into the
results.
5) Respecting the strengths and weaknesses of the other
discipline.
6) 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.