Back Translation is the process of translating a document that has already been translated into a foreign language back to the original language – preferably by an independent translator. This process is most common in organizations were product testing and research are a core aspect of the business, i.e Survey organizations, pharmaceutical and biotech companies.

The problems for these organizations are localizing content for the target audience and the intention of the survey or research getting “lost in translation.” This is because the nuances of translation are far-ranging. A literal word in one language, for example, may have no equivalent in another language, or could have a completely different “meaning” or effect in the translated language. This is why translation is an part-art not all science. No literal translation can be expected to convey perfectly the “meaning” of what consumers meant to convey in their own language. All the good work of a focus group moderator in not “interpreting” verbatim comments can be wiped out by a careless translator.

Back translation is instituted by organizations to improve the reliability and validity of research in different languages by requiring that the quality of a translation is verified by an independent translator translating back into the original language. Original and back translated documents can then be compared. If there are discrepancies, then the translated content has to be re-reviewed and necessary changes are put in to the document.

Due to its high cost, back translation is not overly common, but in organizations where there is a high risk-high reward component to target market success it is considered another “cost of doing business.”

The question is, “Is there a more efficient way of managing these risks than have back translation performed?” To answer the question, we need to understand the main driving point of the back translation, which is to ensure the quality of the initial translation.

Are their alternatives to back translation?

Translation quality can be impacted by a number of factors.

First, the content you are creating has to be managed properly. Authoring is essential. Especially in fields where there is heavy regulatory compliance, such as the pharmaceutical or biotech industries where the penalties for failure can be far greater than monetary costs.

For heavily regulated industries the assumption is that all source content created has enough rules around it from the compliance requirements, so additional scrutiny is unnecessary. That is far from true. An overall translation and localization management strategy has to take every part of the supply chain in to consideration and incorporate active practices for managing each of them. Source content creation (Authoring) is the first step in localization, and mistakes here can exponentially drive up costs as the process continues.

The second factor is asset management. Global organizations have long used Translation Memories to store previously translated content for re-use. However, it is more than just having assets behind your translation. It is about managing your assets intelligently and incorporating their care and upkeep as part of your overall strategy.

For TMs, that means more than just using them. An organization should invest time in a TM strategy that includes the maintenance, collection and “scrubbing” of all language assets on a regular basis. Whether you use “in-house” translators, freelancers or language service companies, you must have a strategy.

However, just as important as TMs are style and terminology guides for the target languages. Earlier in the blog, I mentioned there are times when a literal word in one language does not have an equivalent in the target language. Even worse, literal translation of a word or product name has negative connotations in the target language. A perfect example was the Chevy “Nova” when it was sold in Spanish markets.

Style guides and terminology have to be part of a asset management strategy to works in conjunction with you production (translators) strategy.

A third factor is the training and skills of the initial translator. The translator needs to not only speak English and the target language fluently, but implicitly understand the target market. The best way to ensure this is by having in-country, native speakers handle the initial translation of the content. No argument can be made that a person residing anywhere but in the target market can localize properly.

Finally, having a quality control process that ensure each of these three items is fully checked will further ensure the quality, accuracy and consistency of localized content.

Incorporating all four of these into a single over-arching strategy for approaching local markets will provide better, more cost-effective results than hiring “independent” translators to back translate content for review. When hiring an independent translator to back translate your content, at a minimum you have doubled the time and cost of your translation. The actual translation or content is the most expensive part of the localization process by far. It is also the most time-consuming part. Putting in a corporate strategy, opposed to using back translation will drive efficiencies in reducing cost, improving quality and speeding up time-to-market. More importantly though, it will guarantee that those surveyed in the local market are having the information provided to them with all appropriate local nuance, thus driving up their comprehension and minimizing their risks.

Conclusion

Back translation was created in the absence of a full localization strategy. Many compliance organizations, such as ISPOR (International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) instituted back translations as a requirement in the mid-to-late 1990’s. Here we are almost 15 years later and it has not changed. However, the localization industry has grown exponentially more advanced and in both technology and the understanding of local market nuances.