Manuelle Terminologiepflege reduziert produktive Übersetzungskapazität
Definition
Leading CAT and terminology-management vendors explicitly argue that termbases exist to reduce time and effort in translation by centralising multilingual terms and automatically suggesting approved terminology.[4][6][7][9] Where LSPs lack such systems or use scattered Excel glossaries, translators repeatedly search for terms, re‑discuss choices, and duplicate work, while PMs manually merge client feedback into glossaries and redistribute files. For an Australian LSP team of 10 translators and 3 PMs, if each loses just 15–30 minutes/day on terminology-related admin, that equals ~65–130 hours/quarter or ~260–520 hours/year. Valued at a blended internal cost of ~AUD 60–80/hour, this is AUD 15,600–41,600/year in pure capacity loss, not counting opportunity cost of additional projects that could have been delivered with the same staff.
Key Findings
- Financial Impact: Logic-based estimate: 260–520 hours/year of non-billable terminology admin per 10‑translator, 3‑PM team at ~AUD 60–80/hour → AUD 15,600–41,600/year in lost capacity.
- Frequency: Daily; affects nearly every project where terminology must be verified or aligned across multiple translators or updates.
- Root Cause: Fehlende oder unzureichend konfigurierte Termdatenbanken; Nutzung von Excel-Listen statt webbasierten Terminologieplattformen; keine automatisierten Termvorschläge im CAT-Tool; fehlende Rollen und Workflows für Terminologiefreigabe.
Why This Matters
This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Translation and Localization.
Affected Stakeholders
Übersetzer, Lektor/Korrektor, Projektmanager, Lokalisierungskoordinator beim Endkunden
Action Plan
Run AI-powered research on this problem. Each action generates a detailed report with sources.
Methodology & Sources
Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.