🚀 go-pugleaf

Colin Brace, publisher of _Language Industry Monitor_ and a member of
INSOFT-L, generously sent us the following article about the first annual
meeting of the Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA), which
appeared in the May-June 1993 issue of his publication.

In addition, Colin offers his perspective on LISA in comments that follow
the article.

Jeff
INSOFT-L List Manager

*========================================================================*
 Jeff Bowyer                         EMail:
 Computing Center		     jbowyer@cis.vutbr.cz
 Technical University of Brno
 Udolni 19, 602 00 BRNO
 Czech Republic
*========================================================================*


== Colin's article ===================================================

A Hot Date With LISA

Representatives from leading documentation and translation companies rubbed
elbows with (potential) customers among major IT players at the first annual
Localization Industry Standards Association (LISA) meeting held in Dublin, May
13 and 14th. Dublin was an understandable choice for the site of this
gathering, as an impressive number of American software and hardware companies
have set up European localization operations in Ireland, not least of all the
host of the LISA meeting, Microsoft Ireland. The ready supply of Guinness may
have something to do with this influx from abroad; Ireland's inspirational ten
percent ceiling on corporate taxes for computer-related activities must make
the decision to settle here that much easier.

While a series of panel presentations formed the ostensible focus of the two-
day LISA gathering, generously long coffee and lunch breaks left plenty of
time for the participants to mingle and exchange business cards amid the
Edwardian opulence of Dublin's stately Sherborne Hotel. Two panels highlighted
key localization issues from the perspectives of buyers and suppliers,
bringing to light such key issues as the conflicting requirements of central
coordination and local translation and the increasing pressure to deliver
localized packages at the same time as US versions. Buyers brought up the
sensitive matter of supplier evaluation, while suppliers wondered how to win
customer loyalty in this fickle branch. While many localization practioners
voiced their commitment to technology, few seem to have been able to fully
capitalize on it, constrained partly by the tight operating margins endemic
to this industry. Such discussions are not academic; while localization has
become a big business, there is not yet a translation company on the scene
with the infrastructure to handle all of the requirements of a major software
house. The application of formal quality metrics to translation company
activities in the form of the ISO 9000 standard is one way forward, and this
was the subject of a third panel moderated by prominent language industry
consultant Henri Broekmate. Two more sessions cast light on practical issues
surrounding the implementation of machine translation and restricted English,
with both users and suppliers of each of these potentially important
technologies fueling the discussion.

It was a fruitful two days for anyone doing business in the localization
industry, whichever side of the table they happen to be on. It would be good
to see the LISA conference become a regular event. At the moment, however,
LISA is encumbered by a top-heavy organizational structure and is going
through something of an identity crisis. Is LISA an insider's club for an
elite few to compare management notes? Is it a genuine standards organization
with an open nature and collaborative goals? These questions need to be asked
by the management level members, for they are being asked by the new associate
members, and the future of the organization depends on their being resolved.
LISA could evolve a two-track character, with the core management board
setting its own agenda and the associate members tagging along, in which case
the organization's name is rather misleading. Or LISA could opt to restructure
itself, with open membership, flat (and modest) membership fees, a small
elected executive board, and satellite working groups tackling standardization
issues, etc. The whole might revolve around a substantial annual meeting along
the lines of this year's Dublin event, with continuity in the form of a beefed
up quarterly newsletter. The LISA conference could be held anywhere, but there
may not be a better place for it than Dublin, the localization center of
Europe.

(C) 1993 LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR



== Colin's comments about LISA =======================================

I saw your inquiry about LISA. Well, you know what I wrote about it
in LANGUAGE INDUSTRY MONITOR, so I won't repeat anything I said
there.

Someone else on the LANTR-L list was asking about it recently and I
said that I believed that it would be well worth the US$800 membership
fee if you were interested in the BUSINESS of localization (as either buyer or
supplier), but not very useful if you were interested in localization from
the technological perspective, as I gather INSOFT readers are.

LISA is primarily a business-oriented group.


-- Colin