There are key factors to consider when deciding between in-house and outsourced localization models including quality, turnaround times, language requirements, content specialisms, and cost. While in-house localization allows for tighter quality control and cost visibility, outsourcing provides more flexibility to scale resources up or down to meet varying demand, only paying for what is used without additional costs for downtime or absence. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages depending on an organization's unique localization needs.

1. Prepared by:
Anna Simpkins
Capita Translation and Interpreting
March 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are key drivers that straddle both in-house and outsourced localization provision; quality, turnaround times,
languages requirements, content specialisms and cost. These drivers influence the decision to invest in a viable model
for the organization.
enquiries@capita-ti.com
Tel: +44 (0) 845 367 7000 - UK
Tel: +1 (800) 579 5010 - USA
www. capitatranslationinterpreting.com

2. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches with the main benefits to the latter over the former being
around resourcing and the associated costs.
It is not clear whether quality outweighs these issues in all cases, as level of service and experience will vary from one
language services provider (LSP) to another, but the following, balanced findings are based on our own experiences
combined with feedback from customers with large localization requirements.
RESOURCE AND WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT
Several roles need to be included in an in-house or outsourced localization team in order to ensure steady job handling,
linguist management, internal communication, etc.
In-house provision
Localization of large and frequent volumes is usually the responsibility of the organization’s localization or marketing
manager. This individual must communicate the localization process internally but they generally won’t be in a position to
devote 100% of their time to managing the resource and workflow process. This requires an additional link in the chain
between the internal members of staff requesting the localization support and the linguists in order to manage the process
effectively. This linguist resource management role is critical to prioritize jobs in an in-house environment as there will be
a finite linguistic resource and some jobs will take precedence over others, for example financial reporting over health and
safety training documentation. If any jobs become backed up then this could result in products or services being late to
market, which could have a financial impact on the organization over the longer term in addition to creating friction
internally within the organization structure.
Outsourced provision
Resource management and workflow process management are key roles within an outsourced model, without associated
costs in some cases and most have the capacity and resource in place to ensure that projects don’t get backed up in the
project pipeline. The organization therefore doesn’t need to prioritise departmental localization tasks as all can be
undertaken at the same time within the outsourced model. The downside of this model is that the ultimate control over
linguist assignment to projects will lie with the LSP and not with the organization itself, although requests for specific
linguists can be made.
One additional benefit of the outsourced resource is that additional language services can quickly be implemented, using
existing knowledge of the organization, its style guides, glossaries, TMs, etc - for example multilingual SEO (with skilled
search engine linguists), transcribing or interpreting.
LINGUIST RESOURCE
enquiries@capita-ti.com
Tel: +44 (0) 845 367 7000 - UK
Tel: +1 (800) 579 5010 - USA
www. capitatranslationinterpreting.com

3. Excellent linguists work in both full time and in freelance roles and an organization must consider the benefits of each
linguistic resource solution. Costs can be carefully monitored in the in-house model, which can be ideal in terms of
managing the localization budget however this advantage can be negated by the “down time” that will also come as a
result of full time employed linguists. The necessity for linguists with specific content type experience (such as HR
documentation) and subject matter knowledge (such as financial services sector) will also need to be taken into account
as will the need for proofreaders/reviewers with exactly the same skills and experience.
In-house provision
An in-house resource means that costs can be fixed which gives total visibility of localization spend. These employees will
also be immersed in the culture of the organization, which eliminates the need to spend time correcting stylistic queries,
as would be the case with an outsourced linguistic team. More importantly, those linguists are also in the enviable
position of being able to influence source content more, which generally improves the localization process. There is
however the risk that this access to transcreate content will mean the organization’s content deviates from its original
style and therefore becomes less effective in its end state.
If linguistic services are outsourced then the organization loses direct control over the linguists selection for localization
jobs. This can result in quality and consistency being compromised, although any LSP would work extremely hard to
avoid this, based on feedback from its client base.
Wherever possible, workload can be matched to the internal linguists’ skills, which is ideal in organizations where the flow
of localization projects is steady and constant in terms of volumes, deadlines, content and languages. This could
however present a problem if it was identified that resource needed short term upscaling. Jobs could end up backing up
within the organization which would have a financial implication.
Outsourced provision
Outsourcing to freelance linguists via a language services provider ensures a responsive service, quick turnaround times
and a resource that can be upscaled or downscaled to meet localization requirements as they flex. Many organizations
don’t have a steady flow of jobs and instead respond to peaks and troughs of localization demand and this is where an
outsourced solution can be more cost effective and efficient.
Although costs are not fixed as they would be with full-time employed linguists, organizations only have to pay for what
they use. This eliminates costs for down time generated by holidays and any planned or unplanned absence.
Freelancers are completely focused on their high throughput to ensure a steady income, therefore they tend to work
faster than in-house linguists, who often need to multitask within their roles. They are also often keen to work into the
evenings, outside of traditional office working hours, to ensure maximum project-related income.
enquiries@capita-ti.com
Tel: +44 (0) 845 367 7000 - UK
Tel: +1 (800) 579 5010 - USA
www. capitatranslationinterpreting.com

4. With a pool of freelance linguists, based in their native countries, all languages can be covered at no additional cost to the
organization, other than the standard cost of the project. This also allows for 24*7 provision so there is no down time cost
to be absorbed.
The downside of this however could be seen to be that there may be some inconsistency in the provision of certain
linguists – in other words an organization might not get the same linguist from one project to the next. Even if this is
requested it is not always possible to meet this demand.
QUALITY
Quality is critical in localization and must be maintained through whichever route is selected; in-house or outsourced
provision.
In-house provision
Quality control can often be tighter within an in-house linguistic team as the same linguists are working on the content
repeatedly. They are familiar with terminology so don’t need to refer to glossaries and style guides in the same way that
freelance linguists will so the process can be simplified and consistency is assured.
Quality is however reliant on the management processes in place and this requires proofreaders, reviewers and quality
managers, which can be an additional expense to the organization as they should always be independent from the
translators that have worked on the source material.
Outsourced provision
As stated above, using multiple linguists over a period of time with one customer can affect quality. To mitigate this risk,
the review and quality management process needs to be robust and consistent. A critical role in the quality management
of localization is the proofreading/reviewing stage, which is provided by the LSP.
HUMAN RESOURCES
In-house provision
enquiries@capita-ti.com
Tel: +44 (0) 845 367 7000 - UK
Tel: +1 (800) 579 5010 - USA
www. capitatranslationinterpreting.com

5. As with any internal resourcing challenge, staffing costs go beyond the basic salary of any employee. Recruitment,
training, employer’s tax, premises and support costs all have to be attributed to staffing overheads and these obviously
also fluctuate in different geographic markets.
As stated earlier in this document, the ideal in-house resource will include a localization manager, a translation manager,
a file engineer and linguists. With all of this additional headcount comes associated overheads, which can essentially
double the cost of the budgeted salaries. This has to be kept in mind when planning the installation of an in-house
localization team.
Outsourced provision
Unlike traditional staffing, the outsourced model has fewer associated “people” costs for the organization. The sole cost
will be around buying the linguist time and, in some cases, file engineering and project management time. Associated HR
costs for these individuals will not be passed on to the organization.
TECHNOLOGY
Technology costs associated with the provision of localization services, whether in-house or outsourced, must also be
taken into account, both in terms of both skilled individuals and the hardware/software
In-house provision
With an in-house solution, in addition to the initial recruitment costs and ongoing training costs, there will be a significant
technology cost, which will be influenced by the software requirements of the projects and the licensing. Hardware costs
will be the initial outgoing expense, which will then be compounded by licensing of fonts, software purchasing, glossary
handling tools, TM technology and potentially tools such as Trados. Even with this basic provision there will be a lack of
flexibility around content types that can be supported.
Another thing to be considered is whether 24 hour project management and linguist cover will be available. If this is a
requirement then additional resource will need to be employed which brings associated employment costs along with
basic salary expenses.
Outsourced provision
Any professional LSP will have all the hardware, software and translation tools in place to ensure full localization
provision. In addition, the costs associated with upgrade, TM maintenance and training are absorbed by the LSP. An
LSP will also have the added benefit of staying abreast of language industry evolution, new solutions, cloud delivered
services, etc.
SUMMARY
enquiries@capita-ti.com
Tel: +44 (0) 845 367 7000 - UK
Tel: +1 (800) 579 5010 - USA
www. capitatranslationinterpreting.com

6. There are obvious benefits to the creation of an in-house localization team – mainly the cost control and the quality
management. This solution is ideal for an organization with limited language requirements that are unlikely to increase in
the immediate future, that has a steady stream of projects of similar sizes that can be planned in each month without any
need for flexibility.
The in-house solution however is more costly over time due to technology, training, recruitment, licensing and tool
upgrade costs. All of these things can be cost prohibitive to an organization whose workflow fluctuates and requires file
engineering of any non-standard documentation.
enquiries@capita-ti.com
Tel: +44 (0) 845 367 7000 - UK
Tel: +1 (800) 579 5010 - USA
www. capitatranslationinterpreting.com