How to Set Up a Review Team

One of the most important aspects of localization quality assurance is the review process. Review is the stage where the translated content is checked for accuracy, consistency, style, tone, terminology, and compliance with the client’s specifications and guidelines. Review can help you identify and correct any errors, inconsistencies, or ambiguities in the translation, and ensure that the final product meets the highest standards of quality.

But how do you set up a review team to ensure the quality of translation? There are different models of localization review team that you can choose from, depending on your needs, budget, and resources. In this article, we will introduce four models of localization review team and their respective pros and cons.

Model 1: In-house

One option is to hire your own in-house quality assurance (QA) team to review the translation. This means that you have full-time employees who are dedicated to reviewing the translated content for your projects.

Pros of this model

• Your in-house QA team is available when you need them. You don’t have to worry about finding and hiring external reviewers every time you have a new project.

• Your in-house QA team can collaborate very closely with your stakeholders, such as product managers, developers, designers, marketers, and legal teams. They can understand their needs and expectations better, and provide feedback and suggestions accordingly.

• Your in-house QA team can acquire all your internal knowledge, such as your company culture, vision, values, tone of voice, style guides, glossaries, terminology databases, and best practices. They can apply this knowledge consistently across all your projects and languages.

• Your in-house QA team can watch over your vendors and help you train them. They can monitor the quality of their work, provide them with constructive feedback, and share your internal knowledge with them.

Cons of this model

• Hiring full-time employees costs a lot of money. You have to pay for their salaries, benefits, taxes, insurance, equipment, office space, and other expenses.

• Getting headcounts for hiring in-house QA team can be difficult. You have to justify the need and value of having an in-house QA team to your management and get their approval.

• You can only afford to hire an in-house QA team for your main languages. For less common or less profitable languages, you may not have enough budget or resources to hire an in-house QA team.

• You need to ensure that your in-house QA team always has enough work. If you have seasonal or fluctuating demand for localization projects, you may end up paying for idle time or overworking your in-house QA team.

• You might need more in-house QA resources than you can afford. If you have large-scale or complex localization projects that require multiple reviewers or specialized expertise, you may not have enough in-house QA resources to handle them.

Model 2: Outsource

Another option is to fully outsource the review work to another language service provider (LSP). This means that you delegate the entire review process to an external vendor who is responsible for finding, hiring, training, managing, and paying the reviewers.

Pros of this model

• The work on your end is minimal. You don’t have to spend time and effort on finding, hiring, training, managing, and paying the reviewers. You just have to provide the translated content and the specifications and guidelines for the review process.

• Your review vendor is responsible for almost everything: selection, training, management, and quality assurance of the reviewers. They have to ensure that they have qualified, experienced, and reliable reviewers who can deliver high-quality results on time and within budget.

• Outsourcing the review work to another LSP is less expensive than hiring full-time employees or contractors. You only pay for the actual work done by the reviewers, and you don’t have to cover any overhead costs.

Cons of this model

• You have very little control over anything. You have to trust your review vendor to handle everything for you, and you may not be able to intervene or influence any decisions or actions.

• You have almost zero visibility into people, process, etc. You may not know who are the reviewers working on your projects, how they are selected, trained, managed, or evaluated, what are their qualifications, experience, or performance, how they are doing the review work, what are the tools or methods they are using, etc.

• Your reviewers might not be the best out there because:

  • Your review vendor doesn’t treat them well, or doesn’t pay them enough, or doesn’t test them too rigorously. This may affect their motivation, engagement, and loyalty.

  • Your review vendor may not have access to the best reviewers in the market, or may not be able to retain them for long-term projects.

  • Your review vendor may not have enough reviewers for your languages, domains, or volumes.

Model 3: Contract

A third option is to hire contractors to review the translation. This means that you have independent freelancers or consultants who work for you on a project-by-project basis.

Pros of this model

• Your contractors are available when you need them. You can hire them on demand, and you don’t have to pay for them when you don’t have any projects.

• Your contractors can collaborate very closely with your stakeholders and internal teams. They can communicate directly with them, and they can adapt to their needs and expectations quickly and easily.

• Your contractors can acquire all your internal knowledge. They can learn from your company culture, vision, values, tone of voice, style guides, glossaries, terminology databases, and best practices. They can apply this knowledge consistently across all your projects and languages.

• Your contractors can watch over your vendors and help you train them. They can monitor the quality of their work, provide them with constructive feedback, and share your internal knowledge with them.

• Hiring contractors is cheaper than hiring full-time employees. You only pay for the actual work done by the contractors, and you don’t have to cover any overhead costs.

Cons of this model

• Hiring contractors is more expensive than outsourcing the review work to another LSP. You have to pay a higher rate for the contractors’ services, and you may have to cover some additional costs such as travel expenses or taxes.

• Your contractors will find another job if they can’t earn enough. You have to ensure that you have enough projects for them to keep them busy and satisfied. Otherwise, they may look for other clients who can offer them more work or better pay.

• You might not be able to give your contractors full visibility into everything due to confidentiality issues. You may have to limit their access to some sensitive information or documents that are only available to your internal teams or stakeholders.

• You need to manage and train your contractors as if they were full-time employees. You have to provide them with clear instructions and expectations, regular feedback and evaluation, ongoing training and development, etc.

Model 4: Hybrid

A fourth option is to ask your LSP to hire a QA team and directly manage the hired QA team. This means that you work with your LSP to find, hire, train, manage, and pay the reviewers, but you retain some level of control, involvement, and visibility over the review process.

Pros of this model

• You don’t have the total burden of managing these resources. You can leverage your LSP’s expertise and experience in finding, hiring, training, managing, and paying the reviewers. You can also rely on your LSP’s infrastructure and tools to support the review process.

• You can decide on your level of control, involvement, and visibility. You can choose how much you want to be involved in the selection, training, management, and quality assurance of the reviewers. You can also choose how much you want to see or know about the people, process, etc.

• You can step in or dig deeper as needed. You can intervene or influence any decisions or actions if you are not satisfied with the results or performance of the reviewers. You can also request more information or reports from your LSP if you want to monitor or evaluate the review process more closely.

• Asking your LSP to hire a QA team and directly managing the hired QA team is still a cheaper option than hiring full-time employees or contractors. You only pay for the actual work done by the reviewers, and you share some of the overhead costs with your LSP.

Cons of this model

• This model is more complex than the other models. It will require a lot of time and involvement from you to coordinate and collaborate with your LSP and the reviewers. You will also need to establish clear roles and responsibilities, expectations and guidelines, communication channels and protocols, etc.

• You will need to manage your review vendor closely, as if they were your (extended) team. You will need to provide them with clear instructions and expectations, regular feedback and evaluation, ongoing training and development, etc.

• You will also need to work with your review vendor on processes and improvements. You will need to align your processes and workflows with your review vendor’s processes and workflows. You will also need to share your feedback and suggestions with them, and implement any changes or enhancements that can improve the quality and efficiency of the review process.

Setting up a review team to ensure the quality of translation is a crucial step in any localization project. There are different models of review team that you can choose from, depending on your needs, budget, and resources. Each model has its pros and cons, and you need to weigh them carefully before making a decision.