CHAPTER 1
CHANGING TIMES, CHANGING STYLE GUIDES
Jennifer OâNeill
Jennifer OâNeill is a senior technical writer based in Brussels, Belgium. She has worked with technical publications for 17 years. OâNeill has a Masterâs degree in science in ergonomics and a background in usability. Prior to working with technical publications, she worked as an ergonomist in the United Kingdom and France evaluating the usability of buildings. It was during that work that OâNeill first became involved with building security and encountered the documentation that accompanies security products. OâNeill currently works for a U.S. multinational corporation that manufactures security products, such as closed-circuit televisions, for a global market. Canadian-born Irish, she speaks English as her mother tongue and is fluent in French. She has worked in three countries: the United Kingdom, France, and Belgium.
CHAPTER SYNOPSIS
Based on the writerâs personal experience, this is a story about change, change that occurred against the backdrop of the global economy, change that rose out of the need for companies to stay fiercely competitive in the global market. As European and American companies went through mergers and acquisitions, publication units were relocated and restructured, and style guides had to be created, re-created, merged, and only to be abandoned. This story illustrates how a group of European technical communicators try to adapt to these changes and produce quality documentation for the global market. However, as various moves and false moves were made, the demands of some regions and markets rose to the top, while the needs and concerns of others fell by the wayside. Debates and discontent broke out, and compromises as well as one-sided decisions were made. Through it all, we learn the challenges faced by European writers trying to produce, on tight budgets, documents for a regional market that operates in 20 languages. We understand their frustration trying to educate American writers and editors on how to write for translation and localization. And, probably most importantly, we are asked to accept the necessity and reality of change.
The times they are a-changing.
âBob Dylan, 1964
In January 2007, three heating and ventilation manufacturing companies, two located in the United States and one in Europe, merged to create a global company. Their joint product base now included heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units, boilers, pumps, fans, filters, refrigeration, solar panels as well as more software driven services such as energy management and building automation systems. The merger made sense as all three companies wanted to expand their global reach in an increasingly competitive marketplace. It would help jump-start long-term growth because each company brought business, technology, and market strengths to the table that complemented each other.
The two U.S. companies mainly operated in the North American market, although one had started to expand into Latin America and had small but growing sales offices in Mexico and Brazil. The European company operated across Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). From now on, all three companies would be known as Shannon Global Facilities, Inc. (all company and character names used are pseudonyms).
TECHNICAL WRITING TEAMS
The two U.S. companies both had a technical publications department, located, respectively, at their R&D sites in California and Arizona. Collectively they had nine writers, one editor, and two documentation managers.
The California writing team was based in Oakland, California. As a result of the merger, this R&D and administration site was now to become the global headquarters of Shannon Global Facilities, Inc. The writers were managed by Nancy Sherbakov. Her technical publications department had five writers and an editor. Nancy had a long career as a writer and editor, working in several sectors such as telecoms, financial and equipment manufacturing. She had been managing this department for the last five years. Zac Browning managed the Arizona technical publications department. He had built his team over the last seven years, growing it from just two writers attached to engineering to a technical publications department with four writers and himself as the manager.
The European company involved in the merger had four writers located in three countriesâFrance, the Netherlands and Hungaryâto accommodate the companyâs R&D sites in Maastricht, the Netherlands; Budapest, Hungary; and its headquarters in Lyon, France.
The European writer based in Lyon, France, was Sara Mitchell. She was English and had moved to Paris after graduating in French over 12 years ago. She had joined her current company six years ago from Paris as a senior technical writer. The move to Lyon had initially been a big social change for Sara, but now it was her home. It was the gastronomic capital of France and let her explore her love of cooking. It was also cheaper than Paris to visit restaurants renowned for their cuisine.
Saraâs technical writing colleagues in Maastricht, the Netherlands, had also been moved around. Dirk was Dutch but was born in Surinam. His family returned to the Netherlands when he was nine years old. He lived over the border in Antwerp, Belgium, for a couple of years after graduating in journalism and then in Madrid, Spain, for a few years before moving back to the Netherlands. He had excellent English, was also fluent in German and Spanish and had reasonable French.
The other âDutchâ colleague was Sonia, who had been with the company for two years. Sonia was actually Scottish and had an IT background. She had a wanderlust spirit. So far, she had worked in five countries (England, Germany, Italy, France and now the Netherlands), usually as a contractor. Technical writing as a career gave her the flexibility to move around Europe for work. Sonia was fluent in German, had reasonable Dutch, and had some Italian.
Gabor at the Budapest, Hungary, office was Hungarian and had never lived outside his country. He was a young kid when the Wall fell in 1989 so he had learned English in school but had some knowledge of Russian. He had moved from technical support in the company to become a technical writer three years ago.
The European company had decided several years earlier that they would use U.S. English in all English language communications. So despite their diverse backgrounds, the European writers wrote in U.S. English. Their writings included installation, configuration, and inspection manuals for installers (which averaged around 80 pages) as well as a few end-user guides. The European writers also oversaw the localization of the manuals each had written, so they worked closely with the translation agencies and the sales offices across EMEA.
Now part of the EMEA division of Shannon Global Facilities, the European writers operated in 20 languages across the EMEA region. However, it was too expensive to translate the manuals into all these languages to meet customer needs, so languages were prioritized, depending on the product and its market. The average number of languages in a translation project was 12 (with an upward trend). They were paid for from the central translation budget managed from the Lyon headquarters. The demands of localization meant that the European writers were kept continually alert to the costs of getting their work to market in all the required languages.
PROBLEMS IN U.S. MANUALS
Shortly after the merger, Shannon Global Facilities started their efforts to sell in the EMEA market those products that were previously only available in North America. In May 2007, Sara was told by the EMEA product management team that as part of her tasks she would now also be overseeing the localization of U.S. manuals and energy management and building automation system software for the EMEA market. They told her that the United States had previously only translated a few short manuals, which was done by the Mexican and Brazilian sales offices. The U.S. staff had not yet used the services of a translation agency as their sales offices translated for free. As Europe already had several yearsâ experience working with many languages, the United States would now also send their work to them to be translated for products sold in EMEA. The EMEA business would pay the cost of these translations.
That same month, Sara started to receive the source files of manuals from the documentation managers in the United States. The manuals varied between 40 and 120 pages and all were done in Microsoft Word. As she began to check the U.S. manuals for potential localization issues, Sara quickly realized that there were three main problems: (1) the manuals lacked global branding; (2) they followed conflicting style guides; and (3) they had not been created with translation in mind.
Although Shannon Global Facilities had by now existed for over five months, the company still didnât have a single corporate branding identity. Marketing was working on it, but it probably wouldnât be finalized for at least a few more months. Sara needed to get these manuals out the door in multiple languages as soon as possible. However, she was faced with manuals that had been branded prior to the merger with multiple branding identities. The company names and logos were different from those used in EMEA and had different fonts, cover designs, and colors.
In North America, there were sales teams for each business group (HVAC, renewable energy, and energy management), and each group had its own branding. The U.S. technical writing teams expected Sara to keep their branding in the translated manuals until the new corporate branding was released. However, in EMEA, the sales teams in each country sold all products (as it wasnât practical to have three separate sales teams in each of the 30 countries), so one common branding identity was used for the whole region. The EMEA product management wanted Sara to convert the U.S. manuals to the EMEA branding until there was a common global one. They were adamant that they didnât want a kaleidoscope of brandings released in the EMEA market before the global branding appeared, particularly as some of the American brandings meant nothing to EMEA customers.
Looking at the source manuals from the two U.S. companies and comparing them with the European manuals, Sara also noticed that each groupâs manuals followed different style guides. For instance, there were many ways of saying the same thing and terminology differed. These inconsistencies, Sara thought to herself, would have an impact on cost. Their translation budgets were never large enough to meet demand and their managers were always chasing her and her colleagues to control cost. Her company usually paid a lower price for translation agencies to translate identical, or nearly identical, texts. But all these differences in writing meant lower reuse of content and higher translation costs. Ouch!
Another problem she faced was that the U.S. manuals had not been written for localization. There were no allowances for the impact of text expansion that so often comes with translation. The U.S. manuals frequently used forced page breaks to position paragraphs nicely on the page, which would affect the layout of translated documents. One documentation group often placed sections inside text boxes, which meant that when translated, the content would expand out of sight in the text box and the box size must be manually adjusted. The manuals did not contain metric measurements, numbers lacked a leading zero, the contact information was U.S.-only contact, and so on, all causing more work for her and the translation agencyâand, again, more time and cost.
The biggest problem of all was about the graphics. Most of the graphics had embedded text.
A big nuisance, Sara thought to herself as she sat back in her chair. Sara needed these manuals in 10 languages. If all source graphics are sent to the translation agency, for every graphic, each language will be placed in a separate layer in the graphic file. To insert the translated text in a graphic could take around 10 minutes per language. Thatâs 1 hour 40 minutes per graphic. The agency charges 30 euros ($44) an hour for such workânot including the actual translation, but thatâs minimalâ so this single graphic will cost 50 euros ($73) to put into 10 languages. If the manual has 10 graphics requiring similar work, it could cost 16.7 hours and 500 euros ($731). This graphic-related work could easily account for 3 to 5 percent of the total translation cost of a manual and delay its release. Although 3 to 5 percent can seem a small share, do several manuals and these extra costs and time delay would accumulate. With tight translation budgets and deadlines, such extra costs and delays are unwelcome and need to be avoided.
To avoid these costs and delays, Sara had to modify these graphics first. Many graphics, Sara noticed, were simply jpeg files, which meant she had to go looking for the source graphics first. She then needed to add numbered callouts to the graphics and place the associated text under the graphics. Although the text could be directly placed in text boxes over or around the graphic in Word, translation agencies strongly disliked this practice. It ran the risk of the text being accidentally omitted in translation (translators donât work directly in the Word file but in a translation memory tool). The box could a...