Inkonsistente Fachterminologie führt zu Nacharbeit und Rabattforderungen

Definition

Australian translation/localisation buyers (software, medical, mining, government) expect strict adherence to approved terminology and often require ISO 17100–compliant processes with terminology control.[5] Poorly managed termbases or ad hoc glossaries lead to inconsistent key terms across releases or channels, which is then caught at client review. Industry sources for CAT tools and LSPs stress that terminology databases are needed specifically to ensure consistency and avoid costly corrections and delays.[4][5][6][7][8][9] When terminology is wrong, LSPs typically absorb the cost through unpaid rework, additional QA cycles, and sometimes commercial concessions. A conservative logic-based estimate: a mid-sized Australian-focused LSP handling 5–10 million words/year, with 5–10% of projects affected by terminology issues, can easily lose 300–600 hours/year of linguist and PM time on rework (valued at ~AUD 70–90/hour blended), i.e. AUD 21,000–54,000/year, plus a further AUD 30,000–100,000/year in fee write‑offs and discounts to appease key accounts. This is consistent with global LSP benchmarks that place cost-of-poor-quality (including terminology) in the low single-digit percentage of revenue range.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Translation and localisation providers in Australia 🇦🇺 waste AUD 50,000–150,000 per year on unpaid rework and discounts caused by inconsistent terminology. Automation of terminology capture, approval, and enforcement across TMs and termbases eliminates most of this risk.

Affected Stakeholders

Projektmanager Übersetzungsagentur, Leiter Lokalisierung, Freiberufliche Übersetzer, Qualitätssicherungsmanager, Key-Account-Manager

Related Business Risks