Waterfall-agile-continuous localization

You may have heard the terms waterfall localization, agile localization, and continuous localization, but do we really know what they mean? The common thread between each of these terms is that they are mainly used to describe translation and localization processes for international audiences. That being said, there are significant differences between the three such as different translation project management models or methodologies. Let’s take a closer look at the definitions of these localization terms.

Waterfall localization: A traditional linear approach, this localization model is the most familiar. It’s what language service providers (LSPs) usually use when translating documents. In fact, waterfall localization is typically used for the translation needs of regulated industries such as life sciences. Essentially, the translation and localization takes place once the document is finalized.

Agile localization: This localization method came on the scene because of limitations of the waterfall approach when translating content for digital products such as software, games, apps, websites, etc. As the term suggests, an agile approach is when localization and translation are done during the product development lifecycle, rather than at the end of the development process. This parallel process is commonly accomplished in sprints (short work cycles) which are typically two weeks in duration. With a focus on fast delivery of the product, the idea is to produce a working build or implement as many features as possible every two weeks, correct issues, and repeat the process.

Continuous localization: Often considered a subset of agile localization, it improves on agile localization. While agile localization is done in sprints, continuous localization is an ongoing cycle of localization and translation deliverables. The other key difference between the two is that with the agile approach, localization is integrated into the process; whereas in continuous localization it’s integrated into the software’s continuous delivery workflow.

As you can see, each localization approach was developed based on industry needs and to reduce translation and localization bottlenecks that could delay or jeopardize international growth.

The upside, downside and when to use

With a better understanding of the three localization models, let’s take a deep dive into the benefits and limitations of each of these approaches, as well as when to use them.

Waterfall localization

Benefits:

- Predictable project scope and cost
- Less resources are required
- The LSP has sufficient time to prepare and allocate resources
- In-house translators are rarely required
- In-country reviews are easier to schedule
- Extensive documentation is done at every phase of the software’s development lifecycle

Limitations:

- Not desirable for complex projects where requirements change frequently
- The testing period takes place later in the development process
- Could incur higher costs for retroactive bug fixes or changes, as well as result in release delays
- Developers and testers spend a lot of time on documentation
- Large quantity of material may result in low in-country QA feedback
- Slower target market feedback
- May result in version management issues since slightly different language versions of a product can co-exist

Agile localization

Benefits:

- Beneficial for more complex projects where requirements change frequently
- Developers and QA teams can test the localized software along with the unit, functional, and integration testing that is normally performed
- Faster time to market since localization occurs simultaneously with other development activities
- Lower costs since localization is done only for new or updated content
- Detection of issues or bugs during localization results in lower costs to fix bugs
- Faster feedback from target markets
- Smaller volumes of content to be translated/localized means faster turnaround time

Limitations:

- Requires close collaboration to ensure synchronization of processes to reduce project delays
- Quicker delivery requires additional resources
- Greater amount of administrative tasks and more handoffs
- May require internal localization engineers that possess specialized knowledge
- In-country reviews may be more difficult which can lead to missed deadlines and QA challenges

Continuous localization

Benefits:

- Beneficial for products on an accelerated feature/release cycle
- Shorter and faster development cycles
- Expedites product releases
- Translation and localization takes place in smaller and more frequent batches
- Product is localized within the same time frame as source software is developed
- Provides sufficient time for preparation and review of target materials
- Less frequent handoffs than with agile localization
- More manageable in-country reviews

Limitations:

- Relatively short time frames for meeting timelines
- Requires a dedicated in-house staff member for workflows
- Possibility of additional costs if the LSP charges minimum fees

The answer to which localization model will provide the best results is highly dependent on your industry and release cycle timeframes. As we already established, waterfall localization is preferred for smaller digital projects where requirements are well defined and infrequently changed, or for documents required by industries that are regulated. On the flipside, in the digital world where software updates and new releases enter the market quickly and frequently, continuous localization will yield the best results.

When making the decision as to which approach is best for you, remember your ultimate goal is to launch new products or features offshore as quickly and error free as possible. Making this a reality requires a trusted LSP that has extensive experience in each of these localization processes, and can guide you on the most cost-effective approach that will deliver the results you desire.

If you’d like to learn more about how BURG Translations helps you ensure high quality translations, contact us today.