content at the right time, in the right language: innovation with a healthy dose of cost reduction...

Content at the Right Time, in the Right Language: Innovation with a Healthy Dose of Cost Reduction, A Case Study

Jeannette Eichholz Information Development World

2 Information Development World

September 2015

The Problem


September 2015

Business, 1995

Help

Paper

CD-ROM

L700

A Unique Documentation Set was Created

for Each Ultrasound

System

L500 L400 L200 L100

Writing in Silos


September 2015

1999 - Redundant, Cumbersome, Expensive L700 L500 L400 L200 L100

Online Help

Paper

CD-ROM

SpanishFrenchGerman

ItalianPortuguese

SwedishDanish

RussianTurkish

Greek

5 Unique Documentation Sets Translated

into 10 Languages

>$3 Million, AND, Late


September 2015

The Problem• Siloed Information – No access to

centralized content• Lack of Modular Component Content

Model• Inconsistent Authoring and Translation• Proprietary Tools• Only able to translate AFTER English

Manual Completed – therefore, can’t sell globally for several months after English language launch


September 2015

Business Imperatives MUST • Launch Products Simultaneously to Global

Markets• Within Shorter Project Cycle Times• While

– Controlling Costs– Ensuring Quality– Meeting Global Regulatory Requirements

With Flawless Execution


September 2015

Finding the Solution


September 2015

Synchronicity and a Bit of LuckMy first brush with a Component Content Management System – sheer luck and synchronicity!


September 2015

Discovery of the Solution• Six Sigma Methodology

• Define the problem• Measure – Quantify your CTQs, What’s

Critical to Quality• Analyze• Implement• Control


September 2015

Determine Methodology / Strategy

Define

Project Objectives:Create a new user documentation development, control, and translation process to maximize writer productivity and to reduce costs by 30%.

Project Scope: User documentation and translations.

Business Case:Current process costs too much and takes too long. Facilitate on-time documentation and translations. Cost Avoidance: Only translate one set of content rather than multiple sets of content.

Project Team and Scheduled Milestones:

Core Team: Jeannette Eichholz

D M = August 2000A = September 2000D = October 2000V = November 2000Close = December 2000

GOALOutline project objectives, scope,

business case, timeline and resources


September 2015

MeasurePRACTICAL PROBLEM

Map Critical Customer Issues to Specifications

Critical Customer Issues• Translation Costs are High• Translations Not Available on Time• Documentation should be available

for multiple outputs• Reducing duplication of effort would increase quality and increase productivity

CMS Specifications• Reuse Content

Reuse 50% of Content• Repurpose ContentRepurpose 50% of Content• Translate Content OnceYes/No• Easy Way to Handle Last-Minute

ChangesYes/No• Flexible Common Development

ToolsYes/No• Collaborate GloballyYes/No


September 2015

Pugh Concept Selection Matrix

ConceptsNote: Pick one concept as the "Datum" or Baseline Concept

Criteria Rating 1 2 3 4 5One set of content to translate 9 -2 S S 2 2Translate Smaller Chunks of Content 9 -2 -2 -2 2 2Able to dynamically update all instances 9 -2 -1 -1 2 2Able to tag content for re-use 9 -2 -2 -2 2 2Able to output same content to paper, pdf, web 9 -2 1 1 2 2Able to use content for multiple training purposes 9 -1 -1 -1 2 2Able to share content with Service Doc. 9 -2 -2 -2 2 2Global access to content 7 -2 2 2 2 1Common templates and style guide 5 1 2 2 2 2Collaborative authoring 7 -2 2 2 2 1Common content development tools 4 -2 2 2 2 2Elkminate redundant content 9 -2 1 1 2 2Eliminate redundant translations 7 -2 1 1 2 -2Automate workflow to increase speed 7 -2 -2 -2 2 2Automate difference document creation 7 -2 -2 -2 2 -2Able to reuse translated content 9 -2 -2 -2 2 -2Able to tag translated content for re-purposing 9 -2 -2 -2 2 -2Able to dynamically update translations 9 -2 -2 -2 2 -2Tools that interface w/PC + portability 7 -2 1 1 2 2Write consistently 1 1 2 2 2 2

Totals -277 -68 -68 306 120

AnalyzeRequirements, Alternate Designs, Pugh Matrix

Pick the Best Design

Alternate Designs:1. Current Process

2. FrameMaker + ForeHelp

3. Just FrameMaker

4. FrameMaker + Content Management System

5. Parlance Content Management System

i

Words are Intellectual Capital – We don’t own them – GE owns them. We are now content

managers


September 2015

Design

3rd Level QFD: Design Requirements

Detailed DesignDesign Proof of Concept

SampleContentUsingNew

GlobalTemplate

SampleConverted

to sgml

ImportSample

intoDatabase

ReuseSample

forMultipleProducts

TranslateSample

into3 Languages

ReuseTranslation

forMultipleProducts

OutputShared

Content toPaper,

U/S Web Viewer,CD-ROM


September 2015

The SolutionImplement a Component Content Management System, Partnered with smart vendors:• Astoria -- CCMS• DCL – Converted our 1st Core Content• Contentsu -- Provided Technical

Expertise• SDL – Translation Vendor


September 2015

Success, well, sort ofCCMS Proposal Accepted, but we had a few glitches along the way• Astoria was dropped as a Xerox Subsidiary• Completed implementing the Architecture,

Completed the Programming…. And nothing worked

• The translation vendor translated the tags• The CCMS Translation tool was a great idea,

but it didn’t work (yet)• The CCMS didn’t support a WAN


September 2015

Always have a Plan BMisses can be a godsend• A Better Translation Vendor

• Tools – Translation Memory, Terminology, Translation Workflow Management

• Discovered plasticity in the process• Set up a Citrix-like environment for our

global writers• Keep Business Relationships Working

Develop a Team whose overriding quality is

Persistence

17 GE Title or job number

05/02/2023

Results: Adopted Component CMS• Component-Based Authoring• Global Collaboration• Automated Content Assembly• Automated Publishing• Single Source PDF/Online Help• Manage Content Centrally

• Shared Templates• Shared Tools• Citrix-like Server• Shared Budget• Metrics to Measure• Communication

Increased reuse of existing content across

all products and releases


September 2015

Documentation Paradigm

USIsrael Norway

ChinaKoreaJapan

India8 Product Centers

NorwayVIVID

Content

LOGIQContent

StructuredSGML

Content Management System

32Products

Austria

Xslt Conversion

PDFs

eDOCs

Translate

1-Step Process

Paper Docs only on Request

1-Step Process

Increased Consistency

No Desktop Publishing Cost Or Time

Via F1 on Scanner

eDOCs

Decrease Cost

Electronic Documentation

Ship Complete

Leveraged Translation Memory

Collaborative Global Effort Driving Commonality

19 GE Title or job number

05/02/2023

Results: Adopted TMS Components• Translation Workflow• Translation Memory• Terminology Management• Authoring Memory• Incremental Translation

• Translation Coordination• Formalized Review Process• In Country Technical Reviewers• Metrics to Measure• Integrated Environment

Increased reuse of existing translated

content across products and releases


September 2015

Translation Paradigm

eDocs Online Help

VIVID Content

LOGIQContent

Astoria Content Management

SDL Translation Management

33 languages

TranslationMemory

Paper on request

Terminology Management

Source Content Components, 32 products

VIVID Content

LOGIQContent

Astoria Content Management

SDL Translation Management

Localized Content Components,

TranslationMemory

Terminology Management

Leverage Translation MemoryUpdate Changed Information Only

CD-ROM


September 2015

CTQs Met• CMS paid for itself within the first year• Translation Costs Flat over Past 10 Years

– ~>$3 million for 5 Products in 10 Languages in 1999

~$300K for 32 products into 33 languages in 2015– Virtual Cost per Translated Word = $0.008376

• Eliminated all Desktop Publishing• Simultaneous On-Time Global Launch • ~$2 million Yearly Cost Avoidance via TM Leverage

(95% Reuse)• Continual, Incremental Translation• Streamlined Process

• CCMS, Automated Translation Workflow, Collaborative Writing Team


September 2015

2012 Cost Avoidance: $1,850,9542013 Cost Avoidance: $2,629,9932014 Cost Avoidance: $2,898,886

5%

95%New Words100% Matches

Bulga

rian

Polish

Chinese

Trad

it...

Dutch

Finnis

h

Hunga

rian

Latvia

n

Norweg

ian

Russian

Slova

k

Turkis

h

Portu

guese

IB0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%TM saving - %Cost with no

TM applied

95% TM Utilization 95% TM Cost

Savings


September 2015

Conclusion: Enablers– 6 Sigma Methodology– Lean Process

– Evaluate Wait Time, Queue Time, Process Time– Eliminate Non-Value-Added Steps

– Management Engagement– Collaborative Writing Team – Standard Operating Mechanism– Strategic Planning:

– Reuse Strategy– Budget Planning– 30/60/90/180/1 Year/2 Year/3 Year Planning

– Great Vendors (CMS and Translation Team)

content at the right time, in the right language: innovation with a healthy dose of cost reduction...

Technology