Last week the European Committee for Standards (CEN) approved EN 15038, a specification that defines translation quality and normalizes processes for delivering language services. Once officially published in all signatory countries, it will replace local quality standards such as Germany’s DIN 2345, Italy’s UNI10574, Önorm D 1200.2000 Service Requirements, and Önorm D 1201.2000 Translation Contracts. When EN 15038 is accepted and implemented by language service providers, CEN hopes that its work will help LSPs differentiate themselves on the basis of formal process and quality — and thus help buyers of their services make better purchase decisions.

We spoke with EUATC President Alfredo Spagna who told us “for the first time at the European level the industry succeeded in defining the basic quality requirements of the translation service. There will finally be a pan-European standard that defines translation services, outlines the competencies a translator and reviser must have, and describes quality controls.”

We were curious how EN 15038 compares with the U.S. draft standard for translation services called ASTM 15.48, so we called Alan Melby, one of the ASTM committee members. Melby, a professor at Utah’s Brigham Young University, told us that “ASTM is focused on defining the quality of the final product — that is, the translation — and uses a very flexible approach compatible with functionalism in translation theory.” He went on to say that “CEN avoided defining translation quality per se, instead focusing on requirements for a quality translation service provider.”

Looking over the standards, we see that both ASTM and CEN include terms and definitions related to the process of translation. Melby says that “the definitions and process steps are mostly compatible, but they are just different enough that there needs to be harmonization for translation projects that involve both North America and Europe.” Such harmony between North America and Europe may indeed happen (unless politicians like Donald Rumsfeld get involved).

While the goals of both ASTM and CEN in setting translation service specifications are laudable, we see one major shortcoming with the approach both groups have taken — a lack of transparency. Due to antediluvian restrictions and timelines, the two bodies limited distribution to a relatively small body of reviewers several years ago and have been fine-tuning the specifications ever since. The first “review” that many interested bodies will have is when the specifications are made available for purchase. This pre-web, pre-open source approach to setting standards irritates many language service providers and translators who were not involved in the ASTM or CEN review, but will find themselves subject to the specifications. Of course, anyone can join the ASTM and the review, but few do.

The ASTM and CEN committees do plan to increase the transparency of their efforts. Both groups will be represented in an open forum at the next meeting of the Language Standards for Global Business Summit in Barcelona on 29-30 May where interested parties need to raise their concerns — and lobby ASTM and CEN to update their antiquated review processes.