Translation Management Systems (TMS) can be found in every corner of the translation/localization industry. And they are all just as unique as they are ubiquitous since each language services company seems to have its own proprietary solution. There is still some prevalence, however, with regard to a select few. Granted, these select TMS’s don’t (and really can’t) possess a comprehensive list of all the features one is able to find across the industry, but they do feature the most robust collections of tools and functions out there. Because of this aspect, however, they are anything but simple. Nevertheless, I have taken a dive into their depths and returned alive. So let me show you my experiences with two of the largest and most complex TMS’s in the industry: WorldServer and GlobalLink.
The Comparison: WorldServer vs. GlobalLink
Let me start by admitting just how different reality has been from my expectations for these two systems. After an 8 hour long session with each system, I developed certain biases toward one over the other. This was largely due to aesthetic differences, but also the logical structure and naming conventions used. What was a “project” in one system was entirely different in the other. These fundamental differences in the logic of the system’s infrastructure may have been off-putting, but that shouldn’t cast any doubt on the robustness or utility of each system.
Our evaluations put those aspects to the test to see how they measured up. It turns out that both systems are pretty good at accomplishing what they were intended to do. My team and I came up with 4 categories of requirements, as depicted in the image above, that we believed our client (the LSP Babble-On in our simulation) would be in need of when adopting a new TMS. In each category of requirements, we assigned each requirement a level of value to the TMS: useful, important, and critical. The requirements were then given weights on a scale of 1 to 5 based on our evaluation through a small pilot project.
The pilot project was simply running a short text file through the localization process in both systems. The goal of the this project was to consult our “client” Babble-On in choosing a new TMS to transition to for their business needs and requirements. We did this by demonstrating the functionality of each TMS and showcasing our results in our evaluation tables and a presentation.
The strongest differences we found were in the project preparation phase. Where GlobalLink suffered from a lack of intuitive design, WorldServer didn’t seem as friendly in its workbench design for translators. With proper training, however, we found that both systems served their functions well and reliably.
That being said, WorldServer had a more intuitively laid out system for project preparation. You simply need a set of prerequisite items in place, before you can create a project. Once a project is created, all of the necessary pieces are already in place thanks to the design, which is a reflection of good localization project practice: high front-end investment and preparation for a smooth back-end and delivery.
GlobalLink, on the other hand, had a slightly more complex project setup phase. You could create a project without all the necessary equivalent items required in WorldServer, but you would have to manually edit them in later. The key with GlobalLink is training materials. If you have access to tutorial videos or guides, GlobalLink shines. It has a wealth of tools that allows you to run a project with efficiency and security. It even has a nifty “impersonation” feature that lets you, as an admin, log in as a different kind of user to see their view and whether or not they have access to a project that’s been assigned to them.
In the end, both GlobalLink and WorldServer are solid choices for a TMS. WorldServer can be slow and clunky at times, but it also has a very intuitive design for its purpose. GlobalLink suffers from a lack of intuitive design in many instances, but when you can get proper training for it, it excels at handling the localization process. Both, however, are top considerations if you lack the option to create your own proprietary TMS. Just be prepared for some extensive training time. Our recommendation for our “client”, then, stemmed from this assessment. If you have access to proper training materials, GlobalLink was our choice by only a narrow margin. Should that fail, for whatever reason, WorldServer would make a very reliable second choice.
Below you’ll find a link to our presentation and evaluation files. If you have any questions about this project or simply want to share your experiences with WorldServer, GlobalLink, or any other TMS, please feel free to send me a message on my Contact page.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K6ZBa8lLEdQy4KP9eZ-zOpNJ19XPXQQ7
As a postscript, I’d like to mention one other TMS project that I engaged in during my time at MIIS. This was a consulting project for a client that our professor introduced to us. After being guided through a demo of his proprietary software, my teammates and I assessed some features pertaining to QA and compared them to WorldServer, GlobalLink, and Lingotek.
We utilized a simple scoring system that consisted of issuing a score from 1 to 5 for a single feature and then summing up the total score. And while one might question the use of such a simplistic approach, it should be noted that the data still yielded some interesting and significant results. The TMS whose features we evaluated scored noticeably lower than its competitors overall. And so my team and I issued some important recommendations to the client to help him potentially improve the system. You can view those recommendations in the presentation file linked below. As always, if you have any questions, please use the Contact page to get in touch.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xDbQFfPxgnjOuhF_wv9JuSgen17KeVce