In corporate jobs a request for rush delivery is normal and mostly rests on a real necessity. The problem is that the shorter time squeezes the review steps. A rush job is run not by lowering the level of quality but by changing the arrangements.
Establishing real urgency
The question is asked whether the requested date is really mandatory. Sometimes the date can be stretched. The question is asked politely.
Protecting the review steps
When time is cut, the first step to be squeezed is review, and this is not accepted. The steps are protected. If necessary the scope is narrowed.
The option of narrowing the scope
Translating the critical sections instead of the whole document can be proposed. This is a realistic alternative. The option is offered.
Staged delivery
Sections are delivered as they become ready and the client starts early. The method is effective in rush jobs. A plan is made.
Enlarging the team
Working with more people shortens the time but raises the risk of inconsistency. A balance is struck. The decision is weighed.
Additional consistency review
When the number of people grows, an additional consistency scan is run. This step is added to the time. The risk is managed.
Speeding up terminology preparation
The terminology list is limited to the most critical terms and built quickly. A complete list is not waited for. Priorities are set.
Speeding up the flow of questions
A fast reply channel is set up with the client. Normal reply times do not get a rush job finished. The channel is defined at the outset.
Clarifying decision authority
A contact person who can decide quickly is identified. A job waiting for a decision stands still. Authority is made clear.
Night and weekend work
This working pattern raises the risk of error because of fatigue. An additional review is put in place. The pattern does not become permanent.
The effect of fatigue
In long uninterrupted work the error rate rises markedly. Breaks are planned. This is a quality measure.
Keeping the confidentiality rules
Being urgent does not relax the confidentiality rules. The easy way is not chosen. The rule has no exceptions.
The pull of free-of-charge services
Under time pressure machine translation looks attractive, and it is refused. For confidential documents the ban is absolute. The limit is kept.
Notifying the client of the risks
The risks that the rush arrangement brings are explained openly. Accepting in silence gives rise to liability. The notification is made in writing.
Realistic commitment
A date that cannot be met is not accepted. Accepting it and failing to meet it does greater harm. Honesty is preferred.
Effect on other jobs
A rush job can affect the schedule of other jobs, and this is assessed. A promise given to one client does not delay another. The balance is observed.
Assessment afterwards
When the rush job is finished, the process is reviewed. Recurring urgency points to a planning problem. The observation is shared.
Pricing of rush jobs
The rush arrangement may require extra resources and work outside normal hours, and this is reflected in the commercial terms. Expectations are discussed at the start of the job, not after delivery. The terms are recorded in writing.
What constant urgency means
If every job of a client arrives as urgent, the problem lies not on the translation side but in that organisation's own planning. This observation is shared constructively, and sharing information ahead of time is suggested. Early information benefits both parties.
The next step
Jobs that recur regularly need a separate arrangement. These jobs are the opposite of the urgent one. The sequence is kept.