| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] | "P" symbol - WHO makes the decision about competence? Thread poster: MariusV
|
|---|
PRen (X)
Canada
Local time: 14:40
French to English
+ ...
Henry D wrote: PRen wrote:
Can you be more specific with respect to the situation in Canada? What gaps is CTTIC (and its provincial associations) failing to plug? Let me begin by saying that ProZ.com has been cooperative with various provincial associations in Canada, and has been a supporter of them. For example, ProZ.com has attended and sponsored events put on by the ATIO and OTTIAQ. When we held a conference in Montreal, too, we invited OTTIAQ to take part. In addition, a number of ProZ.com members have served (and probably are serving now) in administrative positions with these groups. Furthermore, it has been possible since the site's earliest days to report credentials earned in Canada, to show such credentials (and the verification by site staff), and to search according to those credentials in the directory. (STIBC in particularly was cooperative in this respect in our early years.) What is more, ProZ.com users have been informed of the existence of these associations and have been encouraged to seek certification. So what is the P program concerned with, that is not addressed by CTTIC? As I understand it, and please correct me if my understanding is not current, the CTTIC exam screens for translation ability, but not for what is referred to in the program as 'business reliability'. To clarify the situation: when a candidate has been certified by the CTTIC, our screening team checks off the column for translation ability - CTTIC certification is considered sufficient in and of itself to satisfy this aspect of the screening process. What is left, then, is to screen for business reliability (and, though you may view it as redundant in this case, require adherence to our professional guidelines.) Does this answer your question, PRen?
So the only thing you're "testing" for is business reliability when it comes to CTTIC members. However, lst time I checked, CTTIC exams included an ethics component. And given that so many proz members do not have certification with other bodies such as CTTIC, you're left back at square one, having to assess their translation skills.
C'mon Henry - you and your staff have no business attempting to verify translation ability, and I think you know that. If you were so interested in quality, you'd be cracking down on all the members claiming two native languages and demonstrating amply in their forum postings that such is patently not the case. Go ahead and test for business reliability and good citizenship (as a proz citizen, I assume - I'm not sure how you'd test for the other kind) - I don't recall any posters in this and the other related forum objecting to those. Proz.com is a translation marketplace. It's your business. You charge people to access clients. Claiming that you can assess members for translation ability is ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
| | | | PRen (X)
Canada
Local time: 14:40
French to English
+ ...
Michele Fauble wrote: Henry D wrote:
What the Certified PRO screening process looks at beyond certifications of translation ability is track record for business reliability, and "good citizenship" (which amounts, in most cases, to agreeing to be bound by the site's professional guidelines as a condition of entering and staying in the program.)
Maybe Proz.com should limit its "certification" to these, and leave certification of translation ability to the qualified examination bodies that award translation certifications.
Great idea. How about it Henry?
| | | | Paul Cohen 
Greenland
Local time: 16:40
German to English
+ ...
| Scale down the program? | Mar 16, 2009 |
Michele Fauble wrote: Henry D wrote:
What the Certified PRO screening process looks at beyond certifications of translation ability is track record for business reliability, and "good citizenship" (which amounts, in most cases, to agreeing to be bound by the site's professional guidelines as a condition of entering and staying in the program.)
Maybe Proz.com should limit its "certification" to these, and leave certification of translation ability to the qualified examination bodies that award translation certifications.
Hi Michele,
Your idea makes sense to me. That would mean scaling down the program to two out of the three current main qualification areas. It would then be a business reliability and good citizenship seal of approval.
And a select network, of course!
Sounds like a good place to start -- as long as the business reliability aspect is rigorously tested. But how could we express this change of objectives to potential clients?
| | | | MariusV
Lithuania
Local time: 20:40
English to Lithuanian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I'd propose an "informal certification" | Mar 16, 2009 |
Paul Cohen wrote: Michele Fauble wrote: Henry D wrote:
What the Certified PRO screening process looks at beyond certifications of translation ability is track record for business reliability, and "good citizenship" (which amounts, in most cases, to agreeing to be bound by the site's professional guidelines as a condition of entering and staying in the program.)
Maybe Proz.com should limit its "certification" to these, and leave certification of translation ability to the qualified examination bodies that award translation certifications. Hi Michele, Your idea makes sense to me. That would mean scaling down the program to two out of the three current main qualification areas. It would then be a business reliability and good citizenship seal of approval. And a select network, of course! Sounds like a good place to start -- as long as the business reliability aspect is rigorously tested. But how could we express this change of objectives to potential clients?
For example, to put it clearly that this is not ATA, IoL type of certification, but Proz PRO is a simple peer-to-peer thing. An informal certification on the basis of colleagues opinions and "certain data" (WWA, BB). I think it could ease a lot of things.
| | |
|
|
|
| Just a proposal | Mar 16, 2009 |
Dear Henry,
I do understand that the P is intended to have a broader scope that membership in any professional association, and that "business reliability" and “citizenship” have a role. Many certifying / licensing bodies, however, although not necessarily in the translation field, do take that into account. They have the power to “delicensing / delisting” any member who fail to comply with legal and ethical standards, a la WWA, although with due process, which really, only... See more Dear Henry,
I do understand that the P is intended to have a broader scope that membership in any professional association, and that "business reliability" and “citizenship” have a role. Many certifying / licensing bodies, however, although not necessarily in the translation field, do take that into account. They have the power to “delicensing / delisting” any member who fail to comply with legal and ethical standards, a la WWA, although with due process, which really, only means notice and an opportunity to be heard.
How we can implement this here is the question. As I am opposed to a private company, a provider of a service, becoming a certifying body (the real reason why I did not join the initial P-group, all my other "objections” being correctable in time), I am starting to think on ways to accomodate all "groups” conviving in ProZ.
I believe that Aniello´s precertification idea, stated here or on a related forum, is superb.
My thoughts: There will be three types of participants in ProZ: Full members, associate members and users.
Full members are those that meet whatever criteria ProZ imposes, such as application to the P-program. Those members are entitled to use the P-symbol, internally or externally, on their resumes, according to a specific phrasing approved by ProZ's legal department (whatever that is).
Associate members are those paying members that have not met the P-program requirements or other, or did not apply to the program. They'll have access to all ProZ’s services, free of charge. They are also entitled to have a symbol, in lieu of the P, if they are certified by a regular certifying body (whatever body ProZ accepts to recognize), such as CT or whatever is the symbol used by the specific certifying body. Full members may use both symbols if they are entitled to use them. Those associate members who claim professionalism based on education, will have a symbol saying, BA, MA, PhD, depending on the higher degree obtained, but only if the degree is related to translation. Which are those degrees and the quality of the granting university will be under ProZ's sole discretion.
As to listing (for jobs, for example), the site would say, in the check option for the client to pick: Certifications, and then a list (P, CT or equivalent, University check list –BA, MA, PhD- or all).
It’ll be up to the associate member to request review and promotion to full membership. Current P-holders are automatically full members.
Users: as today.
Just my 12 cents per word.
Best,
Luis ▲ Collapse
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 19:40
Italian to English
In memoriam | Conflicts of interest | Mar 16, 2009 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
As I am opposed to a private company, a provider of a service, becoming a certifying body
Hi Luis,
I sympathise with your view but please don't get too ideological about these things.
What is important is not so much the legal form of the certifying body as the absence of any conflict of interest. A private company that makes its profit by certifying transparently while keeping the nitty gritty of the translation market at arm's length is potentially at least as good as a properly organised not-for-profit organisation or public body, which may be exposed to political or commercial pressures of one kind or another.
In all cases, transparency is the key.
Giles
| | | | | W$ith one distinction, Giles | Mar 16, 2009 |
Giles Watson wrote: Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
As I am opposed to a private company, a provider of a service, becoming a certifying body
Hi Luis, I sympathise with your view but please don't get too ideological about these things. What is important is not so much the legal form of the certifying body as the absence of any conflict of interest. A private company that makes its profit by certifying transparently while keeping the nitty gritty of the translation market at arm's length is potentially at least as good as a properly organised not-for-profit organisation or public body, which may be exposed to political or commercial pressures of one kind or another. In all cases, transparency is the key. Giles
In a not-for-profit irganizarion, where all the members can vote, run for office or put an initiative to vote there is some limited control by the professionals who are members of that organization.
What I do not want is a private organization setting standards as to what the profession must be.
Transparency is indeed a crucial point. But, how do we insure that in an organizarion that management is not legally require to follow our majority opinion and can simply ignore it?
Best, Giles,
Luis
| | | | Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 16:40
German to English
+ ...
| A proposal: the ProZ Business Reliability Certificate | Mar 16, 2009 |
If we dropped the controversial "translation certification" aspect of the P badge, no one could accuse ProZ.com of biting off more than it could chew … and the symbol would certainly not need to become meaningless -- quite the contrary.
Why not instead call it the ProZ Business Reliability Certificate and focus on something that is tangible and scientifically measurable, namely client satisfaction?
This is how it could work:
The application process... See more If we dropped the controversial "translation certification" aspect of the P badge, no one could accuse ProZ.com of biting off more than it could chew … and the symbol would certainly not need to become meaningless -- quite the contrary.
Why not instead call it the ProZ Business Reliability Certificate and focus on something that is tangible and scientifically measurable, namely client satisfaction?
This is how it could work:
The application process would include an extensive survey of each translator's business reliability. It would ask about their ability to meet deadlines, their ability to maintain confidentiality, their ability to furnish translations that meet customer's needs, their communication skills, how enjoyable it is to work with them, etc., etc.
It could also touch on the quality their work. How satisfied are clients with their work in general? Does it need to be heavily edited or proofread? Etc.
There would be a rating scale for the responses and a formula would be found for rating questions that are answered with "don't know". Certain questions would be viewed as key criteria for receiving the P badge. A minimum number of points would be required to pass.
The questionnaire would be designed in conjunction with survey specialists who know how to formulate questions to achieve specific and valid results.
There would also be an ongoing quality control program. ProZ.com could launch a new blue board for the clients of P badge holders. Any client who would like to provide feedback on a P badge translator could do so at any time on the client blue board. They would then become a ProZ P client. This means that they would then receive an annual follow-up questionnaire to re-assess the P badge holder's reliability.
If the P badge holder has not worked for a particular client for over 12 months, that P client would be dropped from the mailing list.
The entire P badge blue board could be made strictly confidential. All information would remain between the P badge holder, the clients and the P badge review board.
If the annual review process shows that a translator has dropped below a given level of reliability, the individual would be dropped from the program for at least a year.
It goes without saying that the "good citizenship" requirement could remain in place as it is. There is little doubt about ProZ.com's ability to ensure that members respect the ruleZ.
Let's stay on solid ground and not overextend ourselves.
Regards,
Paul ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 18:40
Spanish to English
| And the difference is... | Mar 17, 2009 |
Paul Cohen wrote:
The application process would include... their ability to furnish translations that meet customer's needs
What's the difference between this and translation quality/ commercial viability? Presumably, if I can't translate for toffee, then I won't meet a client's needs.
[Edited at 2009-03-17 00:19 GMT]
| | | | Aniello Scognamiglio (X)
Germany
Local time: 19:40
English to German
+ ...
| A "ProZ Business Reliability Certificate" does not make sense | Mar 17, 2009 |
Paul Cohen wrote: If we dropped the controversial "translation certification" aspect of the P badge, no one could accuse ProZ.com of biting off more than it could chew … and the symbol would certainly not need to become meaningless -- quite the contrary. Why not instead call it the ProZ Business Reliability Certificate and focus on something that is tangible and scientifically measurable, namely client satisfaction? This is how it could work: The application process would include an extensive survey of each translator's business reliability. It would ask about their ability to meet deadlines, their ability to maintain confidentiality, their ability to furnish translations that meet customer's needs, their communication skills, how enjoyable it is to work with them, etc., etc. It could also touch on the quality their work. How satisfied are clients with their work in general? Does it need to be heavily edited or proofread? Etc. There would be a rating scale for the responses and a formula would be found for rating questions that are answered with "don't know". Certain questions would be viewed as key criteria for receiving the P badge. A minimum number of points would be required to pass. The questionnaire would be designed in conjunction with survey specialists who know how to formulate questions to achieve specific and valid results. There would also be an ongoing quality control program. ProZ.com could launch a new blue board for the clients of P badge holders. Any client who would like to provide feedback on a P badge translator could do so at any time on the client blue board. They would then become a ProZ P client. This means that they would then receive an annual follow-up questionnaire to re-assess the P badge holder's reliability. If the P badge holder has not worked for a particular client for over 12 months, that P client would be dropped from the mailing list. The entire P badge blue board could be made strictly confidential. All information would remain between the P badge holder, the clients and the P badge review board. If the annual review process shows that a translator has dropped below a given level of reliability, the individual would be dropped from the program for at least a year. It goes without saying that the "good citizenship" requirement could remain in place as it is. There is little doubt about ProZ.com's ability to ensure that members respect the ruleZ. Let's stay on solid ground and not overextend ourselves. Regards, Paul
I am sorry, Paul, I already expressed my opinion regarding the P issue, I do not remember, it was either in this thread or in the other one
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom:_translator_coop/130058-should_the_p_symbol_be_for_internal_eyes_only.html
Both threads are related and are getting longer and longer.
To cut a long story short: Honestly speaking, installing what you call a "ProZ Business Reliability Certificate" does not make sense to me and I do not want it either. It would make things only more complicated, and how would you define "reliability"?
As I said, and I will repeat myself: The issue is best resolved by proactively installing a screening system that considers true professionals only - from the outset. It would make the P badge obsolete because everything what the "P" is supposed to mean would be implicit.
A couple of colleages mentioned that ProZ.com is not or should not be entitled to certify anybody or anything. Exactly my thoughts, I do second that. I also doubt that from a legal point of view ProZ.com is entitled to claim that the P initiative is "Based on the EN 15038": http://www.proz.com/pro-tag/info.
edited typo "thread"
[Edited at 2009-03-17 17:21 GMT]
| | | | | Thanks, Paul | Mar 17, 2009 |
Paul Cohen wrote:
This is how it could work:
The application process would include an extensive survey of each translator's business reliability...
It could also touch on the quality their work. How satisfied are clients with their work in general? Does it need to be heavily edited or proofread? Etc.
There would be a rating scale for the responses and a formula would be found...
There would also be an ongoing quality control program... Any client who would like to provide feedback on a P badge translator could do so at any time...
The entire P badge blue board could be made strictly confidential. All information would remain between the P badge holder, the clients and the P badge review board.
If the annual review process shows that a translator has dropped below a given level of reliability, the individual would be dropped from the program for at least a year.
Thanks for your proposal, Paul, which apart from the naming suggestion reads more like a description of the current program than a major overhaul. The parts I have selected above are the parts that are along the lines of how the program is already working. (The "quality of work" part is where the program screens for translation ability.)
This and the other thread have taken quite a bit of my attention over the past two days. I am not going to be able to follow these threads and get any work done at the same time. I'll appreciate it if posters refrain from addressing me by name, or asking questions of me personally, any further in this thread.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 19:40
Italian to English
In memoriam | It's up to us | Mar 17, 2009 |
Luis Arri Cibils wrote:
In a not-for-profit irganizarion, where all the members can vote, run for office or put an initiative to vote there is some limited control by the professionals who are members of that organization.
The fact that we members pay to be members give us negotiating power in Proz. To be fair, Proz is at least as responsive as most not-for-profit associations and probably more so than public ones
What I do not want is a private organization setting standards as to what the profession must be.
Neither do I and neither, it seems to me, does Proz. If I have read Henry's postings correctly, he is already consulting established professional associations and where appropriate using their certifications in lieu of testing.
I hope that the profession will continue to dictate the minimum standards to Proz, which by its very nature is well placed to apply them on a scale denied to professional associations. There is room both for Proz to make money legitimately and for associations to continue to be associations.
Transparency is indeed a crucial point. But, how do we insure that in an organizarion that management is not legally require to follow our majority opinion and can simply ignore it?
Well the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as a well-known US president is supposed to have said, so it's up to us. If Proz ever goes off the rails and won't get back on, no one is forcing us to pay for membership.
Giles
| | |
|
|
|
Paul Cohen
Greenland
Local time: 16:40
German to English
+ ...
| Customer satisfaction is measurable -- but not "certifiable"? | Mar 17, 2009 |
Aniello Scognamiglio wrote: Paul Cohen wrote:
Why not instead call it the ProZ Business Reliability Certificate and focus on something that is tangible and scientifically measurable, namely client satisfaction?
Let's stay on solid ground and not overextend ourselves.
I am sorry, Paul, I already expressed my opinion regarding the P issue, I do not remember, it was either in this tread or in the other one.
It was in the other thread, Aniello. And I'm looking forward to hearing more about your groundbreaking ideas about proactively installing a screening system, hopefully in a new thread appearing soon!
...how would you define "reliability"?
Not to put you on the spot, Aniello, but you already have the P badge, so you have implicitly accepted the ability of ProZ.com to certify your business reliability, among other things.
Frankly, I think my idea provides ProZ.com with an "easy out" in an extremely difficult situation. If we define "business reliability" as "customer satisfaction" then, yes, it is measurable. Companies around the world measure their clients' level of satisfaction all the time.
A couple of colleagues mentioned that ProZ.com is not or should not be entitled to certify anybody or anything. Exactly my thoughts, I do second that. I also doubt that from a legal point of view ProZ.com is entitled to claim that the P initiative is "Based on the EN 15038": http://www.proz.com/pro-tag/info.
I'm not familiar with the legal issues here, but I wholeheartedly agree that the words "certify" and "certification" are hot potatoes that should be avoided. My bad!
| | | | | That's what I first thought it was for | Mar 17, 2009 |
Michele Fauble wrote:
Maybe Proz.com should limit its "certification" to these, and leave certification of translation ability to the qualified examination bodies that award translation certifications.
At first, when I was approached by the Red P team, I thought that this was actually the point. I thought it was rather our professionality than our translating ability that was under the microscope. It turns out I was wrong and that translating ability is part of the picture.
I have rated a few people because I know them. I also gave one bad rating to a person who should under no circumstances be part of the P network, both based on her ability to translate and her level of professionalism (I tore my hair out a couple of times when working with her). It is when I was asked to determine the commercial viability of a sample that I started wondering if this is really what ProZ should be doing. Translation is very subjective business, and it is hard to define what "commercially viable" really means. Moreover, I know that there are a few members who have the Red P despite being rather unprofessional people with mediocre translating ability, and when these people are asked to rate samples, I can't help but wonder whether they will label a mediocre translation sample as commercially viable.
I think what Michele proposes makes a lot of sense. It would help to isolate aspects of the Red P programme that are easy to verify. Having worked with colleagues does allow me to tell whether they are professional, but not necessarily to tell whether their translation is up to snuff (I am not an authority on translation).
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » "P" symbol - WHO makes the decision about competence? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
