Profile of the Canadian Language Industry Final Report

Contract number:

EN966-16-2735

Contract value:

$191,710.15 (Harmonized sales tax (HST) included)

Contract award date:

July 5, 2016

Delivery date:

March 20, 2017

Prepared by: R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd.

Prepared for: Public Services and Procurement Canada

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en Français.

For more information on this report, please email: TPSGC.Questions.PWGSC@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca.

Table of contents

• Executive summary
• Sommaire
• Section 1: Introduction
  • 1.1 Project background
  • 1.2 Goal of research
• Section 2: Methodology
  • 2.1 Sampling strategy
  • 2.2 Questionnaire development
  • 2.3 Programming and testing the questionnaire
  • 2.4 Survey administration
  • 2.5 Survey screener
  • 2.6 Data processing and analysis
  • 2.7 Research limitations and challenges
• Section 3: Key findings
  • 3.1 Business overview
    • 3.1.1 Demographics of the surveyed LSPs
    • 3.1.2 LSP satellite branch offices
    • 3.1.3 Services provided by LSPs
    • 3.1.4 Distribution of clients receiving services from LSPs
    • 3.1.5 Areas of expansion
    • 3.1.6 LSP business revenue
    • 3.1.7 Language combinations offered by LSPs
    • 3.1.8 Quality assurance standards
    • 3.1.9 Tools and technologies
    • 3.1.10 Work capacity and charge methods
  • 3.2 Human resources
    • 3.2.1 LSP employees in the industry
    • 3.2.2 Language association membership of employees
    • 3.2.3 Subcontractors in the industry
    • 3.2.4 Language training and recruitment challenges
  • 3.3 Public sector experience
    • 3.3.1 Service to the public sector
    • 3.3.2 Opinions on working with the federal government
• Section 4: Conclusion and considerations
  • 4.1 Considerations
  • 4.2 Areas for further research
• Appendix A: Profile of the Canadian Language Industry 2016 Survey (English)
• Appendix B: Sampling and Methodology

Executive summary

Introduction

The Translation Bureau (the Bureau), a special operating agency of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), was founded in 1934 to provide translation and linguistic services to Government of Canada departments and agencies. As the centre of linguistic expertise in Canada, the Bureau is the exclusive provider of translation and interpretation services to Parliament.

The Translation Bureau required a profile of the Canadian language industry using data collected from language service providers (LSPs) across Canada. By conducting a comparative analysis of the industry from the data collected from a survey in 2004, emerging trends could be identified, and meaningful considerations could be provided to align with the Translation Bureau’s objectives, mission statement and overall business plan. R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd. (Malatest) was contracted to design and administer a survey to a range of LSPs across Canada, conduct a quantitative analysis and provide the findings to the Bureau. The total contract value was $169,655.00, including professional fees and expenses (Harmonized sales tax (HST) extra).

The purpose of the project was to produce a profile of the Canadian language industry that is based on the following aspects of LSPs:

• Production capacity and service lines;
• Language combinations;
• Adherence to quality standards (certified or LSP’s own quality assurance processes); and
• Use of technolinguistic tools.

Methodology and sample

Malatest designed an online and telephone survey to assess the above elements. LSPs who were members of professional language industry associations and could speak about their LSP services (as a business senior, owner or freelance) were invited to complete the survey. A total of 6,001 LSPs were invited to participate, and a total of 628 surveys were completed. The response rate was 10.5%.

The 2016 survey results show that the majority (76%) of LSPs surveyed identified themselves as sole proprietors / freelances compared with 5.8% in the 2004 survey. It is not possible to determine if this represents a change in the language industry as different recruitment strategies were used in 2004 that targeted businesses rather than freelances. To ensure an accurate comparison, sole proprietors / freelances were separated from the 2016 sample when comparisons were being made with the 2004 survey, where possible.

Overview of findings

Service offerings

Similar to the 2004 study, most LSPs who completed the 2016 survey were located in Quebec (37.5%) or Ontario (26.8%). Similarly, clients of surveyed LSP businesses were primarily located in Ontario (49.5%) and Quebec (42.4%).

The majority (68.8%) of surveyed LSPs reported their main language industry–related area of business as being translation, and less than one-fifth (17.7%) reported their main service as interpretation. The language combinations primarily included English to French (48.6%) and French to English (37.3%). While translation was the most commonly identified primary service, many LSPs reported offering multiple language industry–related services. Almost half (46.2%) of those who identified translation as their main service also offered interpretation, and approximately one-sixth also offered terminology services (15.1%) and language training (17.3%). This is in contrast to the 2004 survey, which found that translation businesses rarely offered language training (slightly less than 5%). It is not possible to determine if these differences were due to changes in the industry or due to differences in sampling between survey years.

Revenue and business markets

Surveyed LSPs reported a total of $70.4 million in revenue in 2015. Well over three-quarters (81.8%) of the total revenue was accounted for by incorporated companies / public corporations, with the majority of all revenues generated by translation services (96.3%). It is not possible to determine if translation was the main driver of revenue because those offering this service were overrepresented in the sample. The total reported revenue generated by LSPs increased over the years (+13% from 2011 to 2015) and was anticipated to continue rising in 2016 (+9%) through to 2020 (+19%). Similar trends were observed in 2004, where 41% of businesses anticipated an upswing in revenues.

Of the surveyed LSPs, almost all (99%) conducted their business in Canada, and, on average, the Canadian market accounted for a large proportion in language industry sales (88.8%). Less than half of LSPs reported working in international markets (40.1%), with the most common market being the United States.

Similar to the 2004 survey, over three-quarters (80.7% in 2016 and 78% in 2004) of surveyed LSPs reported that they provided services to private sector businesses and organizations. Also similar to the 2004 survey, well over half (62.9% in 2016 and 59% in 2004) of LSPs reported that they served individual clients.

Clients served

Over half (58.6%) of LSPs reported providing services to the public sector, with provincial sectors (37.9%) and federal (30.6%) sectors being the most common. Approximately two-thirds (63%) of LSPs who worked with the federal sector in the last two fiscal periods believed that working with the federal government was a challenge. The paperwork required to provide services (66.6%) and the limited awareness of procurement opportunities (49.4%) were the most commonly reported challenges. When assessing the ability to handle secret or top secret Government of Canada documents, about one-third (31.7%) of LSPs reported having the facilities and employees necessary, and one-fifth (21.5%) reported having the clearance required.

Human resources

When assessing the employee base of the language industry, survey results show that surveyed LSPs had a total of 6,075 employees in the language industry in 2015, with the majority (76.3%) being employed on a part-time basis. Compared with the 2004 survey, the proportion of full-time employees decreased from 48.3% to 22.8% in 2015. This drop may be due to the large number of sole proprietors / freelances in the 2016 sample, many of which identified themselves as being part-time employees (21.2%). Most LSPs were identified as being small businesses with only one to four employees. The proportion of small businesses was significantly higher in 2016 (93.3%) than in 2004 (55%).

When looking at the future of language industry employees, LSPs anticipated an increase (24.2%) in the total number of employees from 2015 to 2017. However, over half (n = 161, 60.8%) of LSPs with employees reported having difficulties recruiting qualified staff.

A total of 3,114 subcontractors were employed by surveyed LSPs in 2015, including 2,366 individual subcontractors and 748 contracted companies. The total number of subcontractors accounted for approximately half (51.3%) of the total number of employees (6,075). Compared with the 2004 survey, this is proportionally lower. Just less than half (48.9%) of LSPs reported using subcontractors in 2015, including approximately three-quarters (82.2%) of companies (incorporated companies, public corporations, partnerships, non-profits and co-operatives, as well as those identified as “other”) and just over than half (56.8%) of sole proprietors / freelances.

With regard to production, just over one-third (36%) of LSPs who provide translation services reported translating 1,001 to 2,000 words per day. The majority (n = 602, 95.9%) of surveyed LSPs reported being able to work outside normal business hours. Overall, approximately three-quarters (72.5%) of surveyed LSPs reported having quality assurance processes, and, of this group, almost three-quarters (73.6%) reported having more than one process in place. Fewer (42%) surveyed LSPs reported adhering to language industry quality standards.

Tools and technologies

The majority (79.3%) of LSPs reported that they stay aware of the latest tools and technologies to enhance their language industry services, with the most common method being the use of language association emails (60.7%). In the past five years, translation memory (TM) has been the most commonly reported tool/technology that was incorporated by LSPs (37.7%). Many LSPs (35.2%) hope to incorporate tools/technologies in the next five years to improve their language industry services to save time and improve the accuracy of their work.

Considerations

The following considerations were formed from the survey results:

• Necessary language services could be promoted to support language duality
• Important quality assurance processes and certification standards could be promoted
• TM appears to be the most valued tool/technology by LSPs
• Some LSPs may not understand the requirements for secret and top secret security clearance required for confidential Government of Canada work
• A large amount of subcontractors are hired by LSPs
• LSPs believe that there are challenges to working with the federal government

Conclusion

This study provides an overview of the Canadian language industry, focusing on the: size of the LSPs, geographic distribution, language combinations, service line, source of income, production capacity, adherence to quality standards and use of technolinguistic tools. Survey results were used in the development of considerations for the Bureau to help in the outsourcing of language industry services and the strengthening of ties between LSPs and the Bureau.

Total contract value: $191,710.15 (Harmonized sales tax (HST) included).

Political neutrality certification

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research.

Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Joanne Barry

Sommaire

Introduction

Organisme de service spécial relevant de Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada, le Bureau de la traduction (le Bureau) a été fondé en 1934 afin d’offrir des services de traduction et d’autres services linguistiques aux ministères et organismes fédéraux. En tant que centre d’expertise en matière linguistique au Canada, le Bureau est le fournisseur exclusif de services de traduction et d’interprétation du Parlement.

Le Bureau avait besoin d’un profil de l’industrie canadienne de la langue fondé sur des données recueillies auprès de fournisseurs de services linguistiques (FSL) des quatre coins du pays. L’objectif consistait à effectuer une analyse comparative de l’industrie au moyen de données recueillies lors d’un sondage mené en 2004 afin de connaître les nouvelles tendances ainsi que de présenter des éléments importants harmonisés avec les objectifs, l’énoncé de mission et le plan d’affaires global du Bureau. Ce dernier a donc conclu avec R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd. (Malatest) un contrat visant l’élaboration et la réalisation d’un sondage destiné à un éventail de FSL de l’ensemble du Canada, la réalisation d’une analyse quantitative et la présentation des constatations au Bureau. La valeur totale du contrat s’élevait à 169 655 $, dépenses et honoraires compris (taxe de vente harmonisée en sus).

Le projet visait à produire un profil de l’industrie canadienne de la langue axé sur les caractéristiques ci-après des FSL :

• capacité de production et gammes de services;
• combinaisons de langues;
• adoption de normes de qualité (certification ou processus d’assurance de la qualité propres aux FSL);
• utilisation d’outils technolinguistiques.

Méthode et échantillon

Malatest a élaboré un sondage en ligne et par téléphone visant à évaluer les éléments ci-dessus. Les FSL membres d’une association professionnelle de l’industrie de la langue qui pouvaient donner des renseignements sur les services linguistiques offerts par leur entreprise (à titre de cadre supérieur, de propriétaire ou de pigiste) ont été invités à remplir le sondage. Au total, 6 001 invitations ont été lancées, et 628 FSL ont répondu au sondage. Le taux de réponse est donc de 10,5 %.

Selon les résultats du sondage de 2016, la majorité (76 %) des FSL sondés se sont identifiés comme propriétaire unique d’une entreprise ou comme pigiste, comparativement à 5,8 % des répondants du sondage de 2004. Il est impossible de déterminer si cette différence découle d’une modification au sein de l’industrie de la langue, car des stratégies de recrutement différentes, qui ciblaient les entreprises plutôt que les pigistes, ont été utilisées en 2004. Lorsque possible, les données relatives aux propriétaires uniques et aux pigistes n’ont pas été prises en compte lors de l’établissement de comparaisons avec les résultats du sondage de 2004 afin d’assurer la justesse des comparaisons.

Aperçu des constatations

Offres de service

Comme en 2004, la plupart des FSL qui ont rempli le sondage de 2016 sont situés au Québec (37,5 %) ou en Ontario (26,8 %). De même, les clients des entreprises des FSL sondés sont principalement situés en Ontario (49,5 %) ou au Québec (42,4 %).

La majorité (68,8 %) des FSL sondés ont indiqué que leur principal secteur d’activité au sein de l’industrie de la langue est la traduction, tandis que l’interprétation est le principal secteur d’activité de moins d’un cinquième (17,7 %) des répondants. Les combinaisons de langues les plus communes sont de l’anglais au français (48,6 %) et du français à l’anglais (37,3 %). Bien que la traduction soit le principal secteur d’activité de la majorité des répondants, de nombreux FSL ont indiqué offrir de multiples services linguistiques. En effet, près de la moitié (46,2 %) des répondants qui œuvrent principalement dans le domaine de la traduction offrent aussi des services d’interprétation et approximativement un sixième offrent aussi des services de terminologie (15,1 %) ou de formation linguistique (17,3 %). Ces données divergent de celles du sondage de 2004, qui a révélé qu’un peu moins de 5 % des entreprises de traduction offraient des services de formation linguistique. Il est impossible de déterminer si ces différences découlent de modifications au sein de l’industrie ou à la composition différente de l’échantillon des deux sondages.

Recettes et marchés

En 2015, les recettes des FSL sondés ont totalisé 70,4 millions de dollars. Les entreprises constituées en personne morale et les entreprises publiques ont généré plus des trois quarts (81,8 %) de la totalité de ces recettes. La majorité (96,3 %) des recettes provenaient des services de traduction. Il est impossible de déterminer si les services de traduction étaient la principale source de recettes, car les fournisseurs de ces services étaient surreprésentés dans l’échantillon. Les recettes totales des FSL sondés ont augmenté au fil des ans (hausse de 13 % entre 2011 et 2015) et elles devraient continuer d’augmenter en 2016 (hausse de 9 %), et ce, jusqu’en 2020 (hausse de 19 %). Des tendances similaires ont été observées en 2004 (41 % des entreprises prévoyaient une augmentation de leurs recettes).

Presque tous les FSL sondés (99 %) exercent leurs activités au Canada et, en moyenne, le marché canadien est à l’origine d’une grande partie des ventes dans l’industrie de la langue (88,8 %). Moins de la moitié (40,1 %) des répondants ont indiqué mener des activités à l’étranger. Le marché étranger le plus commun est les États-Unis.

Comme en 2004 (78 % des répondants), plus des trois quarts (80,7 %) des FSL sondés en 2016 ont indiqué fournir des services à des entreprises et des organisations du secteur privé. De même, plus de la moitié (62,9 % en 2016 et 59 % en 2004) des FSL ont indiqué compter des particuliers parmi leur clientèle.

Clientèle

Plus de la moitié (58,6 %) des FSL ont indiqué offrir des services à des organisations du secteur public, principalement à l’échelle provinciale (37,9 %) et fédérale (30,6 %). Environ les deux tiers (63 %) des FSL qui ont fait affaire avec le gouvernement fédéral au cours des deux derniers exercices ont trouvé qu’il était difficile de travailler pour ce client, et ce, principalement en raison de la paperasse exigée (66,6 %) et de leur connaissance limitée des occasions d’affaires (49,4 %). En ce qui concerne la capacité à traiter des documents « Secret » ou « Très secret » du gouvernement du Canada, environ le tiers (31,7 %) des FSL ont indiqué disposer des installations et de l’effectif nécessaires et un cinquième (21,5 %) ont indiqué détenir les cotes de sécurité requises.

Ressources humaines

En ce qui concerne la main-d’œuvre de l’industrie de la langue, les résultats du sondage révèlent que les FSL sondés employaient au total 6 075 personnes en 2015. La majorité de ces personnes (76,3 %) étaient des employés à temps partiel. La proportion d’employés à temps plein a diminué de 48,3 % en 2004 à 22,8 % en 2015. Cette baisse peut être attribuable au grand nombre de propriétaires uniques et de pigistes au sein de l’échantillon de 2016, car bon nombre d’entre eux se sont identifiés comme des employés à temps partiel (21,2 %). La plupart des FSL étaient rattachés à une petite entreprise ne comptant qu’entre un et quatre employés. La proportion de petites entreprises a considérablement augmenté entre 2004 (55 %) et 2016 (93,3 %).

En ce qui a trait à l’avenir de la main-d’œuvre de l’industrie de la langue, les FSL prévoient que le nombre total d’employés augmentera (24,2 %) entre 2015 et 2017. Cependant, plus de la moitié (n = 161, 60,8 %) des FSL employant du personnel ont indiqué avoir de la difficulté à recruter des employés qualifiés.

En 2015, les FSL sondés ont eu recours aux services de 3 114 sous-traitants, plus précisément de 2 366 particuliers et de 748 entreprises. Le nombre total de sous-traitants représente environ la moitié (51,3 %) du nombre total d’employés (6 075). Cette proportion est moins élevée qu’en 2004. Un peu moins de la moitié (48,9 %) des FSL ont indiqué avoir fait appel à des sous-traitants en 2015, c’est-à-dire environ les trois quarts (82,2%) des entreprises (FSL qui ont coché : entreprise constituée en personne morale, entreprise publique, société en nom collectif, corporation sans but lucratif, coopérative ou autre) et un peu plus de la moitié (56,8 %) des propriétaires uniques et des pigistes.

En ce qui concerne la production, un peu plus du tiers (36 %) des FSL qui offrent des services de traduction ont indiqué traduire entre 1 001 et 2 000 mots par jour. La majorité (n = 602, 95,9 %) des FSL sondés peuvent travailler en dehors des heures normales de bureau. Dans l’ensemble, environ les trois quarts (72,5 %) des répondants suivent un processus d’assurance de la qualité et près des trois quarts (73,6 %) d’entre eux ont mis en place plus d’un processus. Moins de FSL sondés (42 %) ont indiqué avoir adopté les normes de qualité de l’industrie de la langue.

Outils et technologies

La majorité (79,3 %) des FSL ont indiqué se tenir au courant des nouveautés liées aux outils et aux technologies afin d’améliorer leurs services, et ce, principalement (60,7 %) en consultant les courriels envoyés par les associations de l’industrie de la langue. Ces cinq dernières années, la mémoire de traduction a été l’outil ou la technologie qui a été le plus adopté par les FSL (37,7 %). De nombreux fournisseurs (35,2 %) espèrent adopter des outils ou des technologies au cours des cinq prochaines années afin d’améliorer leurs services, de gagner du temps et d’accroître la qualité de leur travail.

Points à considérer

Les points ci-après ont été formulés à partir des résultats du sondage :

• Le Bureau pourrait faire la promotion des services linguistiques dans les principales combinaisons de langues afin d’appuyer la dualité linguistique.
• Le Bureau pourrait faire la promotion de normes de certification et de processus d’assurance de la qualité importants.
• La mémoire de traduction semble être la technologie ou l’outil auquel les FSL accordent le plus d’importance.
• Il est possible que certains FSL ne comprennent pas les exigences liées aux cotes de sécurité de niveau « Secret » et « Très secret » requises pour traiter les documents confidentiels du gouvernement du Canada.
• Les FSL font appel à un grand nombre de sous-traitants.
• Les FSL croient qu’il est difficile de faire affaire avec le gouvernement fédéral.

Conclusion

Le présent rapport donne un aperçu de l’industrie canadienne de la langue en ce qui concerne la taille des entreprises de services linguistiques, leur répartition géographique, leurs combinaisons de langues, leur gamme de services, leur source de recettes, leur capacité de production, l’adoption de normes de qualité et l’utilisation des outils technolinguistiques. Les résultats du sondage ont été utilisés afin de formuler des points que le Bureau de la traduction pourra prendre en compte afin de contribuer à l’impartition des services linguistiques et au renforcement de ses liens avec les fournisseurs.

Valeur totale du contrat : 191 710,15 $ (taxe de vente harmonisée incluse).

Attestation de neutralité politique

J’atteste par les présentes, à titre de cadre supérieure de R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd., que les produits livrables se conforment entièrement aux exigences de neutralité politique du gouvernement fédéral énoncées dans la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada et dans la Procédure de planification et d’attribution des marchés de services de recherche sur l’opinion publique.

En particulier, les produits livrables ne comprennent pas d’information sur les intentions de vote électoral, les préférences quant aux partis politiques, les positions des partis ou l’évaluation de la performance d’un parti politique ou de ses dirigeants.

Joanne Barry

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Project background

English and French, Canada’s official languages, are an essential part of the Canadian identity. While Canada’s linguistic diversity includes more than 200 home languages / mother tongues, 98% of the country’s population reported that it was able to conduct a conversation in either English or French in the 2011 Census. In 2011, 17.5% (i.e. 5.8 million) of the Canadian population reported being bilingual in English and French, an increase of 0.1% (i.e. 350,000) since the previous census in 2006. The large majority of this growth can be attributed to the increased number of Francophone Quebecers who reported being able to conduct a conversation in English and French; official language bilingualism declined slightly in all other provinces except Quebec.¹ English and French language duality facilitates dialogue amongst all Canadians, which encourages national unity and holistic understanding. Canada’s two official languages also provide cultural and artistic enrichment to communities. Official language bilingualism is an asset to Canadians’ employability and strengthens economic prosperity.

Due to the importance of language duality to Canada, the Government of Canada has put in place various policies and organizations in support of bilingualism. One such organization is the Translation Bureau, a special operating agency of Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) that was founded in 1934 to provide translation and linguistic services to Government of Canada departments and agencies. The Translation Bureau is the centre of linguistic expertise in Canada, and is the sole provider of translation and interpretation services to Parliament. It is also the main provider of translation and interpretation services to other government departments and organizations. The services provided by the Translation Bureau have ranged from traditional on-site interpreters to its current slate of services and tools that make use of modern technology to provide services in both official languages, as well as Aboriginal, foreign and visual languages.

In recent years, the Translation Bureau has been evolving to confirm its position as a centre of excellence for linguistic services across Canada, advancing linguistic duality in Canada and helping to strengthen the Canadian language industry. This process involves:

• creating a new business model in which the Bureau will position itself as the coordinator and provider of linguistic services across the federal government;
• strengthening links with the language industry by means such as the increased outsourcing of translation services;
• improving the effectiveness of the contract management mechanism; and
• adopting modern technolinguistic tools that are adapted to government needs.

The Bureau offers linguistic services to a wide range of federal government departments and agencies and Crown corporations. The services cover a variety of subject areas, including law, administration, avionics and the environment. The Bureau takes all the necessary steps to ensure it has qualified internal resources to meet the needs of its clients in terms of quality and volume of work. When internal resources are unavailable, it uses language service providers (LSPs) through supply arrangements. To ensure smooth delivery of linguistic services government-wide, the Bureau requires sound knowledge of its industry partners, including their production capacity, language combinations and service lines, and adherence to quality standards and use of technolinguistic tools.

¹Statistics Canada. "Linguistic Characteristics of Canadians.”

1.2 Goal of research

The Translation Bureau required the development of a profile of the Canadian language industry using data collected from LSPs across Canada. A comparative analysis was necessary between new and existing data to identify emerging trends and to make meaningful recommendations aligned with the Translation Bureau’s objectives, mission statement and overall business plan. R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd. (Malatest) designed and tested a data collection tool, and collected and analyzed the quantitative data for the study.

The purpose of the project was to produce a profile of the Canadian language industry that is based on the following aspects of LSPs:

• Production capacity and service lines;
• Language combinations;
• Adherence to quality standards (certified or LSP’s own quality assurance processes); and
• Use of technolinguistic tools.

The study complements several previously conducted reports on the language industry, and comparisons were drawn from a previous study on a 2004 survey of language industry companies. The following reports helped inform the 2016 Profile of the Canadian Language Industry:

• Final Evaluation of the Language Industry Initiative (2008) (PDF 220KB)
  • The evaluation of the Language Industry Initiative (LII) served to assess the results and effectiveness of the LII. This report presents the program evaluation results, including outcomes of the LII, and the Language Industry Program by surveying AILIA members and companies who received contributions under the program.
• Survey of Language Industry Companies in Canada: Translation, interpretation and language training (2006) (PDF 486KB)
  • This report provides an analysis of results from a Statistics Canada survey of language enterprises. Specifically, the study reports on the revenue, client groups, costs and profitability, and human resources of translation and interpretation businesses (NAICS 541930) and language training schools (NAICS 611630). Where appropriate, this report served as the comparison for the results of the 2016 survey.
• Economic Assessment of the Canadian Language Industry (2007) (PDF 102KB)
  • This report presents an assessment on the language industry’s national economic impact. Using existing literature, the Conference Board of Canada (CBoC) conducted an economic impact analysis, assessing key variables including business revenues, industry jobs, salaries and wages earned by those who are self-employed.

Section 2: Methodology

The following section details the sampling strategy, questionnaire development, programming and testing of the questionnaire, survey administration and data analysis procedures undertaken for this study.

2.1 Sampling strategy

The sampling strategy developed ensured an appropriate number of potential survey participants were distributed among the professional associations. Malatest utilized two sampling approaches for this project in order to develop as accurate a profile of the industry as possible:

• The first sample of LSPs was obtained through professional associations that had their member information available online. These records were manually collected and uploaded into the Computer Assisted Telephone/Web (CATI/CAWI) software, CallWeb, where they were used for direct survey administration. This uploaded sample was checked for duplicates as Malatest was aware that some LSPs could have been members of more than one professional association.
• The second sampling approach was implemented to reach LSPs whose information was not provided by professional associations (e.g. owing to privacy concerns). Malatest provided the professional associations with an email script to send to their members, inviting them to participate in the survey online or by phone. Those who wished to complete the survey online were required to contact Malatest to receive a passcode for the survey. Through this method, Malatest monitored survey completions. This sample was cross-referenced with the first sample to ensure that no LSPs completed the survey twice—once through an invitation from Malatest and once through their respective professional association(s).

The sample was developed using the following steps:

• Malatest approached a total of 15 professional associations using the approved communication materials. Initial contact was made via email, and telephone follow-up was conducted, when necessary.
• Following initial contact with the professional associations, Malatest recorded all publicly available member lists from all association websites. These lists were then merged into a single sample and uploaded into Malatest’s CallWeb software. This sample was checked for duplicates.
• Malatest also worked with language associations to determine if they were willing and able to provide information about the survey to their members. Those who agreed sent email requests to their members, inviting them to participate in the survey.

The breakdown of the sample by source is shown in Table 2.1.

A major portion (61%) of the sample was obtained through the information that was publicly available. The remainder (39%) was achieved from survey information distributed by language associations to members.

2.2 Questionnaire development

Malatest developed a questionnaire based on the key research questions. The questionnaire was designed to align with a past (2004) industry profile survey, where possible, to allow for comparison of data; however, new questions were incorporated into the questionnaire to reflect changes that have occurred in the Canadian language industry and to explore other topic areas. The survey collected information about the LSP organizations on the following topics of interest:

• Size of the organization;
• Geographical location(s);
• Language services offered;
• Service lines;
• Sources of income;
• Production capacity;
• Adherence to quality standards;
• Use of technolinguistic tools;
• Human resources; and
• Public sector experience.

The questionnaire consisted mainly of closed questions. A few open-ended questions were also incorporated to capture more insightful opinions of LSPs when possible and needed. However, open-ended questions were not analyzed in this report.

The questionnaire took approximately 30 minutes to complete. The survey tool was developed collaboratively by the research team with ongoing Client review throughout the process. Common survey quality issues addressed included:

• Consistency of scales;
• Elimination of vague, confusing, leading/biased or double-barreled questions;
• Elimination of jargon or technical language that may be difficult for respondents to understand; and
• Focusing of survey questions to only relevant areas of research to reduce the burden on respondents.

The questionnaire (Appendices A and B) was finalized and approved by the Client prior to being programmed.

2.3 Programming and testing the questionnaire

After the Client approved the survey instrument, it was professionally translated into French. Following the translation, Malatest programmed the final questionnaire in English and French using CallWeb.

Once the CallWeb form was created, it was extensively tested in-house to ensure that the survey instrument performed as required (e.g. that skip patterns were functional). The survey instrument was initially reviewed by the programming team to ensure all functions, skips and calculations performed correctly. The programming team checked commands for all survey fields so that only appropriate responses were allowed. The programming team developed skip commands to ensure that the correct questions were asked.

The survey link was then shared with surveyors and supervisors who reviewed the online form for functionality and flow. Feedback was provided to the programming team. Once revisions were made, a testing link was shared with research staff and, ultimately, the Client to ensure the electronic form was an accurate representation of the survey instrument. This included confirmations of the text and flow of the electronic form.

Malatest notified the Translation Bureau of the primary results of the pre-test and of any recommended changes to the questionnaire. All changes to the survey instruments were approved by the Client prior to being programmed.

2.4 Survey administration

Upon approval of the data collection instruments, Malatest began full survey administration. For LSPs whose contact information was collected from professional association websites and freelance/self-employed LSPs whose information was available online, Malatest began survey administration by sending an email invitation to potential respondents. If an email address was not available, survey administration instead initiated a telephone call if a phone number was identified. This invitation email contained a URL and unique access code so that the survey could be completed online. It also described the purpose of the survey, identified the Client as the project sponsor, included contact information for a representative from both the Malatest project team and the Client, and provided a toll-free number to contact Malatest directly to complete the survey by phone if the LSP preferred this option.

Each case in the sample received an invitation letter, and up to two reminders were provided to those who had not completed the survey. Survey respondents were able to enter the survey at any point during the data collection phase to complete the survey, partially or in full. Respondents who partially completed the survey were able to exit the questionnaire and return at a later time to enter additional data; this could be done as many times as necessary to complete the survey. By accessing the survey, respondents were assigned a unique identifier and passcode that allowed them access to their data until the survey was complete. At any point in the survey, respondents were able to switch between languages and continue entering data without losing any previously entered information.

In cases where telephone numbers were available, Malatest conducted telephone follow-ups to encourage survey participation amongst non-completers to boost response rates. This also minimized the non-response bias and maximized the representativeness of the results, thereby enhancing the statistical reliability of the survey findings. Telephone surveying was administered using Malatest’s in-house call centre facilities in Ottawa and Victoria, with each location making calls to the LSPs who were located closest to the call centre (i.e. regional calling), which typically has a positive impact on response rates.

For LSPs whose contact information was not directly available to Malatest via professional associations’ websites or could not be provided by the professional associations, Malatest provided the professional associations with resources to invite their members to complete the survey. These resources included an email script for their members and a FAQ document. The professional associations were then asked to email the LSPs on their member list with the invitation provided and instructions to contact Malatest to arrange access to the survey.

As this survey administration employed a passive means of obtaining survey completions, Malatest was not able to conduct active telephone surveying and follow-up. However, Malatest provided toll-free telephone numbers that were included in all communications with LSPs. This helpline was staffed by experienced Malatest staff members who were available seven days a week with hours that extended beyond usual office hours to provide unique passcodes for online completions, answer any questions respondents had and facilitate survey completion by telephone. Malatest monitored the number of surveys completed online and by phone. Surveys completed by phone and online were all automatically uploaded into CallWeb.

Malatest obtained 628 (10.5% response rate) survey completions by LSPs across Canada. This is lower than the 2004 survey that had a 35.5% response rate. The majority (598 or 95%) of participating LSPs completed the 2016 survey online, while 30 (5%) completed the survey by phone.

2.5 Survey screener

A survey screener was designed to ensure the most appropriate population was being targeted. However, the screener was not implemented until after the pre-test administration. Therefore, approximately one-quarter (23.4%) of respondents were not asked the screener question. The type of respondents surveyed is shown in Table 2.2.

• *The screener was not implemented until after the survey’s pre-test administration. As a result, this information is not available for businesses who completed the survey during this period (n = 147).

The majority of survey respondents (70.5%) reported that they did paid freelance work. This included respondents who worked mainly as freelances and those who worked at an organization but also did paid freelance work. Those who also worked at an organization were asked to only consider their paid freelance work when completing the survey. Respondents who did not work as a freelance or could not speak to their company’s language services (i.e. only worked as an employee at an organization) were excluded from the survey (n = 75).

Further analysis of the approximately one-quarter (23.4%) of respondents who were not asked the screener question showed that more than half (54.2%) identified themselves as freelances. Less than one-tenth (9.2%) of those who were not asked the screener question identified themselves as part of an incorporated company/public corporation. One-third of respondents (33.1%) who did not answer the screener question identified their business ownership structure as “other,” and the remaining respondents identified themselves as part of a partner or nonprofit organization.

While the screener question helped ensure the most appropriate sample was completing the survey, the data from the question was not used during analyses. Comparisons between companies and sole proprietors / freelances were based on survey questions about business ownership structures.

2.6 Data processing and analysis

Throughout survey administration, data was extracted and cleaned. Collected data was routinely checked to ensure it was complete. In consultation with the Client, Malatest developed a plan to analyze the results from all data collected for each line of evidence. Data from the various lines of evidence was summarized into an analysis framework.

The data was analyzed in accordance with the approved analysis strategy. Most of the analyses were descriptive (e.g. frequencies, cross-tabulations), although more complex analyses were performed when needed.

The data analysis framework included a plan for conducting a comparative analysis with data from the 2004 survey. As data from the previous survey was provided in report-format rather than raw data, the extent to which the comparative analysis could be performed was limited. Comparative analysis was completed where appropriate and where enough data from the 2004 survey report was available to allow comparison.

In reporting, quantitative data has been presented as frequencies and percentages in tables by type of work and other variables as identified through discussions with the Client. Quality assurance checks were conducted on all data sets to confirm the integrity of the data and the consistency of respondent understanding and to identify outliers.

2.7 Research limitations and challenges

A key challenge of the study was reaching LSPs in Canada who were members of professional associations to invite them to participate in the survey. Access to professionals is a common challenge for professions such as LSPs. As previously described, Malatest approached the language industry professional associations to ask them for access to their member directories. Most of the associations were concerned about the privacy implications of providing member information, resulting in some organizations declining access. As a result, Malatest developed a sample list of LSPs (n = 3,680) whose information was publicly available. These cases were contacted directly by Malatest. Malatest also worked with each of the associations and asked them to contact their members and provide support to facilitate survey completion.

Some LSPs were members of multiple associations, which meant that they appeared more than once in the sampling frame. The developed sampling frame was checked for duplicates with different methods to reduce the risk of duplicates in the sample. If duplicates were found, the duplicate case was removed, and the sample was updated.

Comparative analysis helps demonstrate how the language industry had changed over the years. It helps to identify industries and professions experiencing pressures and/or growth. However, the comparisons for the current study were limited to the information available from the previous study’s summary reports. Specifically, the 2004 survey data that served as the basis for comparison was only available in report format. Since raw data was not available, potential comparison data was not always available. Furthermore, it was not always possible to conclude that changes in survey results from 2004 to 2016 were a result of changes in the industry. The 2004 survey used different recruitment strategies, resulting in very different samples. The 2004 survey sampled respondents from Statistics Canada’s business register and excluded independent workers. The 2016 survey sampled from language associations and resulted in a sample made up of mostly sole proprietors / freelances (76%). Only 6% of LSPs surveyed in 2004 identified themselves as sole proprietors / freelances. To ensure accurate comparison, sole proprietors / freelances were separated from the 2016 sample when comparisons were being made with the 2004 survey, where possible. An additional challenge when making comparisons was the large representation of LSPs offering translation services (82.3%) in the 2016 survey. Meanwhile, few LSPs reported offering language training services (11.8%). In the 2004 survey, LSPs in the language training sector represented 41.1% of survey participations, and those in the translation sector represented 62.9% of survey participants. Again, it was not possible to determine if changes between 2004 and 2016 were a result of changes in the industry or due to the different recruitment methods used in those two years. Wherever possible, Malatest analyzed those offering language training services separately provided there were enough LSPs within the sample. As a result of the many differences between the 2004 and 2016 survey samples, Malatest determined the type and extent of analyses that were possible in order to maximize the number of comparisons; this included keeping questions in the survey instrument comparable, whenever possible.

Finally, while providing valuable information about the current position of the language industry and giving insight into anticipated changes, the results only provide a snapshot of the Canadian language industry at the time of the survey. However, these results do help inform recommendations to support strengthening ties between the Translation Bureau and the language industry.

Section 3: Key findings

3.1 Business overview

The following provides an overview of the businesses that participated in the study.

3.1.1 Demographics of the surveyed LSPs

The reported locations of LSP head offices are shown in Table 3.1.

Most head offices were reported to be in Quebec (37.5%) or Ontario (26.8%). This is similar to the 2004 survey, in which most surveyed businesses were located in Quebec (37.6%) or Ontario (28.2%). There were very few head offices reported in Manitoba or Saskatchewan (2.7%) or internationally (0.5%). As expected, many head offices were concentrated in large cities. Montreal was the most common head office location (n = 82, 13.1%). Toronto (n = 46, 7.3%), Ottawa (n = 45, 7.2%), Vancouver (n = 32, 5.1%), and Calgary (n = 32, 5.1%) were other commonly reported head office locations for surveyed LSPs.

The distribution of LSP organizations by ownership structure is shown in Table 3.2.

• *The 2004 survey reported on the number of corporations only. Groups were collapsed in the 2016 survey due to small n’s.
• **The 2004 survey reported on the number of nonprofit businesses only. Groups were collapsed in the 2016 survey due to small n’s.

More than three-quarters (76%) of the survey respondents were sole proprietors or freelances, while 13.7% of respondents defined their business ownership structure as an incorporated company or public corporation. Few respondents identified their businesses as partnerships (1.9%) or nonprofit corporations or co-operatives (1%). When comparing the 2016 and the 2004 surveys, large differences can be seen in the ownership structure of LSPs. In the 2004 survey, the majority (83%) of respondents defined their business ownership structure as a public corporation, and very few respondents represented other ownership types. In 2016, there was a considerably greater representation of sole proprietors / freelances. It is not possible to determine if these differences reflect a change in ownership structure within the industry because of different recruitment methods between the 2016 and 2004 survey (see Section 2.7).

The number of years since LSP businesses were established is shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Demographics - Years Since LSP Businesses Were Established

Description of figure 3.1: This chart demonstrates the number of years since LSP businesses were established, based on n = 628

• 1 to 5 years, 21% - 130 LSPs
• 6 to 10 years, 19% - 120 LSPs
• 11 to 15 years, 14% - 80 LSPs
• 16 to 20 years, 18% - 120 LSPs
• 21 and older, 29% - 178 LSPs

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.

The majority of the LSP businesses surveyed, including freelances, were established over 11 years ago (60.2%). Fewer (39.8%) surveyed LSPs reported that their business was less than 10 years old.

3.1.2 LSP satellite branch offices

The large majority (97%) of businesses who participated in the survey reported that they did not have any satellite branches. This may be explained by the large proportion of sole proprietors / freelances in the sample. Only 3% (n = 20) of businesses reported having at least one satellite office. From this group of respondents, 19 organizations reported having at least one satellite office within Canada and 5 reported having at least one satellite office outside of Canada. All but one organization with an international office also had at least one satellite office located in Canada. Of the 20 organizations that reported having at least one satellite office, most defined their business ownership type as an incorporated company / public corporation (n = 14). The number of organizations surveyed with offices within and outside of Canada is shown in Table 3.3.

• *Number of surveyed LSPs who reported a satellite office.

3.1.3 Services provided by LSPs

The distribution of services offered by LSPs who participated in the study is shown in Table 3.4.

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

• *Language training combines in-class training services (n = 69) and online training services (n = 21).
• **In the 2004 survey, language testing was labeled as language assessment.

The majority (82.3%) of surveyed LSPs offered translation services, and approximately two-thirds (63.6%) offered this service for over 11 years. About one-third (33.1%) of the respondents reported that they offered interpretation services, and more than half (53.8%) reported offering this service for more than 11 years. Other language services, such as dubbing services (4.3%), online language training services (3.3%) and language technology goods and services (3%) were offered by very few surveyed LSPs.

When distribution in the 2016 survey is compared with that in the 2004 survey, a significant increase can be seen in the proportion of LSPs offering translation services, interpretation services and other language industry goods and services. Also, a significant decrease can be seen in the proportion of LSPs offering in-class and online language training services as well as language testing. It is not possible to determine why there was a difference in distribution of services offered by LSPs between the two survey years due to changes in recruitment and the reduced focus on reaching language schools in 2016 (see Section 2.7).

Survey respondents who reported offering more than one type of service were asked to define their main service area. The distribution of the main language industry–related service is shown in Figure 3.2. LSP respondents were asked to select a single main service.

Figure 3.2 Main Services Offered by LSPs

Description of figure 3.2: The pie chart illustrates the main services offered by LSPs (n = 327).

• Translation services, 68.8% or 225 LSPs
• Interpretation services, 17.7% or 58 LSPs
• Terminology services / Localization services, 1.2% or 4 LSPs
• Language training services, 2.4% or 8 LSPs
• Other language industry goods and services, 9.8% or 32 LSPs

Total number of respondents: n = 327.
Note: Terminology services and Localization services were collapsed due to small n’s.

The majority (68.8%) of surveyed LSPs who reported a main area of focus offer translation services as their main service. Interpretation services (17.7%) and other language industry goods and services (9.8%) were the next most commonly reported main area of expertise. Online language training services, language testing and language technology goods and services were not identified as main services offered by any of the surveyed LSPs.

Most LSPs who reported translation services as their main service (n = 225) also reported offering this service for over 15 years (n = 149, 66.2%). Similarly, most LSPs who identified interpretation services as their main service (n = 58) also reported offering this service for over 15 years (n = 33, 56.9%).

While translation services were the most commonly reported primary service, many LSPs offered multiple language industry–related services. Almost half (46.2%) of those who identified translation services as their main service also offered interpretation services, and approximately one-sixth also offered terminology services (15.1%) and language training services (17.3%). Of those who reported interpretation services as their main service, almost all (94.8%) also reported offering translation services, and approximately one-fifth (19%) also offered language training services. This is in contrast to the 2004 survey, which found that translation businesses rarely offered language training (slightly less than 5%), and language training businesses rarely offered translation services (12%).

The distribution of main services offered by ownership structure is shown in Table 3.5.

Total number of respondents: n = 327.
Cells with n values of less than 5 were not included in the table.

Similar to the survey wide data, translation services were the most commonly reported main service offered by LSPs across all business ownership structures. Interpretation services appear to be offered more by sole proprietors / freelances (18.3%) than any other types of LSP businesses.

3.1.4 Distribution of clients receiving services from LSPs

The primary locations of clients, as reported by surveyed LSPs, are shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Geographic Distribution of Clients Receiving Services from LSPs

Description of figure 3.3: This world map illustrates the geographic distribution of clients receiving services from LSPs (n = 628).

• United States of America, 88
• Yukon, 4
• Northwest Territories, 5
• Nunavut, 6
• British Columbia, 140
• Alberta, 85
• Saskatchewan, 19
• Manitoba, 26
• Ontario, 311
• Quebec, 266
• Newfoundland and Labrador, 7
• New Brunswick, 47
• Nova Scotia, 18
• Prince Edward Island, 9
• Europe, 56
• Others (International), 50

Total number of survey respondents n = 628.
Note: n values do not add up to the total number of survey participants due to multiple responses.

Approximately half of LSPs reported serving clients primarily located in Ontario (49.5%) of respondents and Quebec (42.4%) of respondents. Just under one-quarter (22.3%) of respondents reported serving clients that are primarily located in British Columbia.

The frequency and average percentage of client groups served by surveyed LSPs is shown in Table 3.6.

Total number of survey respondents n = 628
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

• *Count corresponds to the number of surveyed LSPs who have selected each client type as a group they provide services to.

The majority (80.7%) of surveyed LSPs reported that they provided services to private sector businesses and organizations. This is similar to the 2004 survey, where 78% of LSPs reported serving clients in the private sector. Individual clients received services from well over half (62.9%) of surveyed LSPs. Again, this is similar to the 2004 survey (59% reported serving individual clients). In the 2016 survey, approximately half (51.3%) of LSPs reported that they provided services to government or Crown corporations. Similar to the 2004 survey, public institutions were the least commonly reported client group.

When comparing client groups by services offered, some differences are clear. A high proportion of surveyed LSPs offering interpretation services serve individual clients (78.4%) compared with LSPs offering other services. This may be explained by the high proportion of sole proprietors / freelances in the sample, many of which serve individual clients (71.3%). Public institutions are served more by those who offer language testing (66.7% of all those who report offering language testing), language training (62.2%) and interpretation services (59.6%) than LSPs who offer other services. Less than half of LSPs who reported offering translation services serve public institutions (42.4%). This is in contrast to the 2004 survey, which indicated that more businesses in the translation sector (39%) served public institutions compared with the language training sector (15%).

The number of LSPs with government or Crown corporation clients by percentage of the client base is shown in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Number of LSPs with Government or Crown Corporations Clients by Percentage of the Client Base

Description of figure 3.4: This pie chart illustrates the number of LSPs with Government or Crown corporations clients by percentage of the client base.

• 1% to 20%, 44.4% - n = 143
• 21% to 40%, 21.1% - n = 68
• 41% to 60%, 12.1% - n = 39
• 61% to 80%, 10.6% - n = 34
• 81% to 100%, 11.8% - n = 38

Total number of respondents: n = 322.

Of the 322 LSPs who reported government or Crown corporations as one of their client types, less than half (44.4%) indicated that this type of client represented between 1% and 20% of all of their client base. Approximately one-quarter (22.4%) reported that government or Crown corporations represented 61% to 100% of their client base. Proportionally, more respondents from incorporated companies reported that government / Crown corporations make up 61% to 100% of their client base than other business ownership types (34% of incorporated companies /public corporations who reported government / Crown corporation clients compared with 20.2% of sole proprietors / freelances).

3.1.5 Areas of expansion

When asked if their business is currently expanding in a specific language industry line of business, approximately one-quarter (22.8%) of surveyed LSPs responded in the affirmative. The majority of LSP survey respondents (77.2%) reported that their business is not currently expanding in a specific line of business. The distribution of expansion in different lines of business for those who reported expansion is shown in Table 3.7.

Total number of respondents: n = 143.

Of the 143 LSPs who reported an expansion in at least one business line, two-thirds (65.7%) identified translation services as an expansion area. Less than one-third (33.6%) of the 143 LSPs who reported experiencing expansion indicated that their expanded line of business was not listed (i.e. they selected “Other”). Terminology services (4.2%) and language technology goods and services (4.2%) were the least reported areas of expansion.

LSPs appear to be expanding in areas where they already offer services, suggesting little diversification of service offerings. Over three-quarters (76.7%) of LSPs who reported expansion in the area of translation also reported offering translation services. Similarly, almost all (94.7%) LSPs who reported expansion in the area of interpretation already offer interpretation services.

All LSP respondents were also asked if their business is currently expanding in a specific area of expertise. Over one-quarter (29.5%) reported that their business is expanding in a specific area of expertise, and 70.5% reported that their business is not currently expanding in a specific area of expertise. Of those reporting expansion in a specific area of expertise, just less than one-third reported expansion in “legal” (31.4%) and “social sciences and humanities” (28.1%) services. Over one-third (37.8%) of LSPs reported expansion in “other” areas of expertise that were not captured in the survey selections. The distribution of expansion in areas of expertise is shown in Table 3.8

Total number of respondents n = 185.
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

3.1.6 LSP business revenue

Surveyed LSPs were asked to report their revenue for 2011 and 2015 and their projected revenue for 2016 and 2020. These were then compared with the revenue reported in the 2004 survey.

The total revenue by ownership structure is shown in Table 3.9.

Total number of respondents: n = 355.
n values do not include respondents who reported a revenue of $0 for any specific year.
Cells with n values of less than 5 were not included in the table.

Overall, the 355 LSPs who reported 2015 revenues generated approximately $70.4 million. Incorporated companies / public corporations accounted for the majority (81.8%) of this revenue. Total revenue was also analyzed with sole proprietors / freelances removed because the revenue made by this group was generally less than the other ownership structures.

When analyzing change in reported 2011 and 2015 revenue and anticipated 2016 and 2020 revenue, only those LSPs who reported revenue between the two years were included. From 2011 to 2015, the total reported revenue increased by 10.6% (n = 225). The 2011 to 2015 reported revenue increase was greater for company ownership structures (sole proprietors / freelances excluded) (14.7%) than sole proprietors / freelances only (7.6%). The 2015 to 2016 anticipated revenue increase for all LSPs was similar to the previous time frame (n = 333). However, sole proprietors / freelances (10.7%) anticipated a slightly greater revenue increase than all other ownership structures (8%). LSPs anticipated the greatest revenue increase between 2016 and 2020 (n = 142, 25.2%). Again, sole proprietors / freelances anticipated a significantly greater revenue increase (56.9%) than all other ownership groups (21.1%).

A total of 97 LSPs in the 2016 survey reported their total and projected revenue for 2011, 2015, 2016 and 2020, allowing comparison across the years. The reported revenue trends and the percentage change over time are shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 LSP Total Reported Revenue - Trends

Description of figure 3.5: This graphic illustrates the trends of LSP total reported revenue by year.

• In 2011, total reported revenue was $30,389,608.
• In 2015, total reported revenue was $34,385,394, which represents an increase of 13% since 2011.
• In 2016, total reported revenue was $37,493,440, which represents an increase of 9% since 2015.
• In 2020, total anticipated revenue is estimated at $44,437,920, which would represents an increase of 19% from 2016.

Total number of respondents: n = 97.

Among the 97 respondents who reported all revenue years, there was a general increase in total revenues reported over the four years. The largest increase for projected total revenue was between 2016 and 2020 (19% increase). Looking at reported revenue from 2011 to 2015, more than half (54.6%) of LSPs reported an increase in revenue, compared with approximately one-third (36.1%) who reported a decline. Similar trends were observed when analyzing projected revenue. Approximately half of LSP respondents anticipated a revenue increase from 2015 to 2016 (46.4%) compared to approximately one-third of LSPs who anticipated a revenue decrease (36.1%). Similar trends were observed in 2004, where 41% of businesses reported positive forecasts. However, more LSPs in 2016 anticipated a revenue decline (36.1% compared with only 14% in 2004). This may be due to the increased number of sole proprietors / freelances in the 2016 sample who were more likely to report a revenue increase than other ownership structures. The average revenue and projected average revenue by LSPs by years of establishment is shown in Table 3.10.

Total number of respondents: n = 97.
n values do not include respondents that said their revenue for a specific year was $0.

LSPs that had been established for 16 to 21 years reported the highest revenue. However, one LSP accounted for over three-quarters of the total revenue reported by this group. When this one outlier was removed, a general trend could be seen between the years since an LSP business was established and total revenue. In general, the earlier the LSP was established, the more revenue it was likely to report having made in 2011 and 2015, and expect to make from 2016 to 2020. This is similar to the trend observed in 2004 where LSP businesses in operation for 10 years or more reported significantly higher revenues than newer LSP businesses.

The 2015 revenue distribution by sources of revenue is shown in Table 3.11. Since sole proprietors / freelances generally reported lower revenues, they were reported separately in Table 3.12. This also allowed for a more appropriate comparison between the 2016 and 2004 survey.

Cells with n values of less than 5 were not included in the table.

• *n values do not include respondents who reported revenues of $0 and respondents who selected “Prefer not to answer” for the entire question.
• **One large outlier was removed from interpretation services.
• ***In-class and online language training services were collapsed due to small n’s.

When analyzing 2015 revenue distribution by sources for incorporated companies / public corporations, nonprofit corporations / co-operatives, partnerships and “others”, translation services accounted for the large majority of the reported 2015 revenue (96.3%) compared with only 38.1% in 2004. It is not possible to know if translation services generate the greatest revenue, or if this trend is due to the large number of LSPs who reported offering translation services in the 2016 sample. The 2004 survey reported a significantly greater proportion of yearly revenue from language training services (47.8%) than the 2016 survey (0.28%). This may be due to the small number of LSPs in the 2016 survey who offered language training services (n = 47) compared with 2004 (n = 238 respondents in the language training sector).

Interpretation services accounted for a very small proportion of the yearly reported revenue (0.40%), even though one-third (33.1%) of the LSPs surveyed reported offering this service. However, many of those who reported offering interpretation services were sole proprietors / freelances (75%). The 2015 revenue distribution by language services provided for sole proprietors / freelances only can be seen in Table 3.12.

Cells with n values of less than 5 were not included in the table.

• *n values do not include respondents who reported revenues of $0 and respondents who selected “Prefer not to answer” for the entire question.
• **In-class and online language training services were collapsed due to small n’s.

Similar to revenue distributions for other LSP groups (see Table 3.11), translation services accounted for the largest proportion of total reported revenue for sole proprietors / freelances (66.8%). As expected, interpretation services accounted for the next largest proportion of total 2015 revenue (12%) as sole proprietors / freelances made up three-quarters (75%) of LSPs who offered this service.

The market distribution of language industry–related total sales is shown in Table 3.13.

• *Count corresponds to LSPs who reported sales in each of the regions.
• **Count % corresponds to the percentage of LSPs who reported sales in each region out of the total n = 628 LSPs. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.
• ***Average % corresponds to the average reported distribution of sales for each region by LSPs.

Almost all (99%) of the surveyed LSPs reported conducting some business in Canada. On average, Canadian markets accounted for a large proportion (88.8%) of LSPs’ sales. Sole proprietors and freelances appear to work mainly in Canada as more than three-quarter (79.7%) of this group reported that over 90% of their revenues were from Canadian sources. Less than half (40.1%) of LSPs also reported working in an international market. This is similar to the 2004 survey, which reported that approximately 30% of businesses exported goods and services. The most popular international market was identified to be the United States with approximately one-quarter (28.3%) of LSPs reporting revenue from this market. The 2004 survey reported that those in the language training sector do more business with Asia. While n values and differences are small, similar trends were observed in 2016.

3.1.7 Language combinations offered by LSPs

The most common English language combinations in which LSPs offer services as shown in Table 3.14.

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.

As expected, the most commonly reported language combination service was English to French with almost half (48.6%) of LSPs reporting this. Similarly, more than one-third (37.3%) of surveyed LSPs reported French to English as one of the language combination services they provide. The second most popular language combination was English to Spanish (10.7%) and Spanish to English (12.3%). Spanish to French and French to Spanish language services were offered by less than 10% of LSPs (8.8% and 6.2% respectively) but were the next most common language combinations offered (see Table 3.15). As expected, more than half (65.2%) of LSPs who reported offering Spanish to English services also reported working in the Mexico, South and Central America markets.

Just under half (45.5%) of LSPs who reported offering translation services also reported offering English-to-French language combination services. Of the LSPs who reported offering interpretation services, less than one-tenth (7.2%) reported offering English-to-French language combination services.

The most common French language combinations in which LSPs offer their services are shown in Table 3.15.

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.

3.1.8 Quality assurance standards

Almost three-quarters (n = 455, 72.5%) of the surveyed LSPs reported having quality assurance processes, and of these, almost all (n = 335, 73.6%) reported having more than one process in place. Approximately one-quarter (n = 173, 27.5%) of LSPs reported that they have no quality assurance processes in place. The frequency of quality assurance processes reported being used by LSPs is shown in Table 3.16.

• *Percentages are calculated based on the total number of survey respondents: n = 628. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

Almost half (46.3%) of all LSPs reported proofreading texts for quality assurance, and over one-third (37.9%) of all LSPs reported using terminology checks. Very few (1.8%) LSPs reported that all texts were sampled by a professional reviser / translator. Of the respondents who did report having at least one quality assurance check in place, more LSPs from incorporated companies / public corporations reported that they had a general terminology bank (40.5%), as well as a specific terminology data bank for each of their clients (58.1%) than sole proprietors / freelances (28.7% and 31.6%, respectively). The n was too small to allow comparison between the other ownership structures.

Less than half (n = 264, 42%) of LSPs reported having at least one quality standards certification, while 58% reported having no quality standards certifications. Table 3.17 shows the most commonly reported quality standards certifications held by surveyed LSPs.

• *Percentages are calculated based on the total number of survey respondents: n = 628. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

One-third (n = 32, 33.7%) of surveyed LSPs reported having more than one quality standards certification. The most commonly reported quality standard certification held by surveyed LSPs was the AVLIC Certificate of Interpretation (5.1%). The majority (74.2%) of surveyed LSPs reported having “other” language industry quality standards certification not listed in the survey.

Of the LSP respondents who reported ISO 17100 – Translation Services certification (n = 16), most (68.8%) identified themselves as a sole proprietors / freelances. Of the LSP respondents who reported CGSB 131.10 Translation Services Standards certification (n = 12), most (66.7%) identified their business as an incorporated company / public corporation.

3.1.9 Tools and technologies

Over three-quarters (79.3%) of surveyed LSPs reported that they kept abreast of the latest tools and technologies to enhance their language industry services. The methods used by LSPs to keep abreast of the latest tools are shown in Table 3.18.

• *Percentages are calculated based on the total number of survey respondents: n = 628. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

Language association emails were the most commonly reported source of information used by LSPs to keep abreast of the latest technologies and tools (60.7%). Just under half (46%) of LSPs also reported magazines and newsletters as being sources of information.

The reported frequency of tools and technologies that LSPs incorporated in the past five years to enhance the language industry services they offer is shown in Table 3.19.

• *Percentages are calcula ted based on the total number of survey respondents: n = 628. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.
• **Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents within each business ownership structure.

Approximately one-third (37.7%) of all surveyed LSPs incorporated TM to enhance their language industry services in the past five years. TMSs (13.5%) and Terminology Management Systems (13.1%) were the next most commonly incorporated tools / technologies. Less than one-fifth (17.2%) of surveyed LSPs reported incorporating “other” tools / technologies not captured in the survey.

Proportionally, more LSPs from incorporated companies / public corporations (65.1% of all incorporated company / public corporation respondents) reported incorporating TM in the past five years than sole proprietor / freelance LSPs (33.3% of all sole proprietor / freelance respondents). This trend is observed across all incorporated tools and technologies except “other.”

The language industry tools / technologies that surveyed LSPs hope to incorporate in the next five years are shown in Table 3.20.

• *Percentages are calculated based on the total number of survey respondents: n = 628. Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.
• **Percentage are calculated based on the total number of respondents within each business ownership structure.

Approximately one-third (35.2%) of LSPs hoped to incorporate a specific tool / technology in the next five years. The most commonly reported tool / technology LSPs hoped to incorporated was TM, which was reported by less than one-sixth (15.5%) of all surveyed LSPs. Proportionally, LSPs from incorporated companies / public corporations were slightly more likely to report that they anticipated incorporating a tool / technology in the next five years than sole proprietor / freelance LSPs. This trend was observed across all tools and technologies except for TM, where similar proportions were observed.

LSPs identified the anticipated impact of incorporating these tools and technologies (see Table 3.21).

Percentages are calculated based on n = 221 LSPs who reported at least one tool / technology.

• *Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

Of the 221 LSPs who reported wanting to incorporate at least one tool / technology in the next five years, the majority (77.4%) reported they hoped it would save time. Almost two-thirds (63.8%) anticipated it would improve accuracy. Other impacts such as “increase business” (43%), “increase competitiveness” (40.3%), and “save money” (29%) were also frequently reported impacts by LSPs anticipating to incorporate at least one tool / technology in the next five years.

The tools and technologies that LSPs hope to incorporate into their businesses by the impacts they anticipate are shown in Table 3.22.

• *Numbers in “( )” show the number of respondents for each category.

Total number of LSPs who reported at least one tool / technology (n = 221)
Percentages are calculated based on the total number of responses for each tool.

Regardless of which tool / technology LSPs identified wanting to incorporate in the next five years, time saving was identified as being the most commonly anticipated impact. To a lesser extent, improvements in accuracy, business and competitiveness were also anticipated to be enhancements to their businesses that would result from incorporating these tools / technologies.

According to the results, sole proprietors / freelances appear to be pioneers in using all the types of tools / technologies listed. It should be noted that these results may be influenced by the large sample of freelance LSPs in the survey. There were more freelance LSPs (n = 495, 78.8%) than any other business types, which may explain the high percentages obtained for this group. Incorporated companies were the other most frequent users of language tools and technologies in the past five years.

3.1.10 Work capacity and charge methods

The majority (n = 602, 95.9%) of the surveyed LSPs reported that they were able to work outside normal business hours as shown in Figure 3.6. Only 4.1% (n = 26) of LSPs reported not being able to work outside normal business hours. This was observed across all ownership structures.

Figure 3.6 Capacity of LSPs to Work Outside Normal Business Hours

Description of figure 3.6: This pie chart illustrates the capacity of LSPs to work outside normal business hours.

• Yes, 95.9%
• No, 4.1%

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.

The breakdown of available employees and facilities required to handle secret or top secret texts and the Government of Canada’s clearance to process them, as reported by surveyed LSPs, is shown in Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7 Employees, Facilities and Clearance to Handle Secret or Top Secret Texts

Description of figure 3.7: This graphic illustrates the breakdown of available employees and facilities required to handle secret or top secret texts and the Government of Canada's clearance to process them, as reported by surveyed LSPs.

• Employees and Facilities:
  • Yes, 31.7% (n = 199)
  • No, 68.3% (n = 429)
• Clearance:
  • Yes, 21.5% (n = 135)
  • No, 78.5% (n = 493)

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.

Of the LSPs surveyed, just under one-third (31.7%) had the ability to handle secret or top secret texts. Similarly, just under one-quarter (21.5%) of LSPs reported that they had the Government of Canada clearance to process secret or top secret texts. The proportion of LSPs who reported having the security clearance necessary for Government work was higher than expected, especially given the large amount of sole proprietors / freelance LSPs in the sample.

The breakdown of preferred charging methods reported by LSPs is shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8 Charging Methods for Language-Related Work by Services Offered

Description of figure 3.8: This graphic illustrates the breakdown percentage per charging methods by services offered, reported by LSPs.

• For translation services: (n = 517)
  • Per word, 67.8%
  • Per hour, 48.9%
  • Per word and per hour, 18%
  • Other, 18.5%
• For interpretation services: (n = 208)
  • Per word, 19.3%
  • Per hour, 20.7%
  • Per word and per hour, 4.6%
  • Other, 11.6%

Total number of survey respondents: n = 628
Percentages are calculated based on the total number of survey respondents.
Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

Charging per word was the preferred charging method of over two thirds (69.7%) of LSPs with slightly fewer preferring charging per hour (62.9%). This was also the case for all ownership structures. More LSPs offering translation services reported charging per word (67.8%) than per hour (48.9%). Similar proportions of LSPs offering interpretation services reported charging per word (19.3%) and per hour (20.7%). Charging per word and per hour using weighted rates (TM) was the least used charging method by all LSPs.

The breakdown of methods to account for project management time and expenses reported by LSPs is shown in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9 Methods to Account for Project Management Time and Expenses

Description of figure 3.9: This pie chart illustrates the breakdown, by percentage, of methods to account for project management time and expenses reported by LSPs.

• Within rate charge, 59.7%
• Not charged, 31.5%
• A separate charge, 8.8%

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.

More than half (59.7%) of surveyed LSPs reported that they included project management time and expenses within their rate charges. About one-third (31.5%) of LSPs reported that they did not charge for project management time and expenses. Few surveyed LSPs (8.8%) reported that they had a separate charge for project management work and expenses.

Approximately three-quarters (73.1%) of LSPs who provide translation services (n = 517) reported their daily translation capacity. The remaining one-quarter (26.9%) of LSPs who provide translation services were not able to report their daily translation capacity.

The daily translation capacity of LSPs offering translation services is shown in Table 3.23.

Total number of LSPs offering translation services: n = 517.

The average daily translation capacity of LSPs offering translation services was estimated to be 5,733 words. The maximum translation capacity was 500,000 words, which was reported by only two LSPs; however, the median for daily translation capacity was 2,000 words. Just over one-third (36%) of LSPs who offer translation services reported their daily translation capacity to be 1,001 to 2,000 words per day. Of surveyed LSPs who reported being unable to work outside normal hours, none reported a daily translation capacity of more than 2,001 words.

3.2 Human resources

The following section provides information on human resources, including number of employees, association membership, subcontractors in the industry, language training and recruitment challenges.

3.2.1 LSP employees in the industry

LSPs reported the number of language industry employees in their organization for the most recent 12-month period (likely 2015) (see Table 3.24).

• *Full-time employees were defined as working 30 or more hours/week.
• **Part-time employees were defined as working fewer than 30 hours/week.
• ***Students could be full-time or part-time.

Total number of respondents: n = 628.

Surveyed LSPs reported a total of 6,075 employees (including business owners) in the language industry. However, one LSP reported having 4,000 employees. More than three-quarters (76.3%) of the reported employees were identified as working on a part-time basis while less than one-quarter (22.8%) was reported to work on a full-time basis. Compared with the 2004 survey, the proportion of full-time employees decreased from 48.3%. This disparity may be due to the large number of sole proprietors / freelances in the 2016 sample, many of which report themselves as part-time employees (21.2%).

The size of LSPs based on the number of reported employees is shown in Table 3.25.

Total number of respondents: n = 628.

LSPs were grouped by number of employees to get a sense of the size of businesses. Given that a large proportion of the sample was sole proprietors / freelances, it is not surprising that the majority (88.1%) of surveyed LSPs had only one employee; 93.5% (n = 449) of sole proprietors / freelances in the sample reported themselves as a single-employee business. Just over half (55%) of the survey respondents in 2004 identified themselves as a small business with only one to four employees, but the proportion was significantly higher in 2016 (93.3%).

The number of employees in the industry based on their occupation category in 2015 is shown in Table 3.26.

Total number of respondents: n = 628.

In 2015, more than half (53.4%) of employees identified by surveyed LSPs were translators, and over one-third (37.1%) were interpreters. This is not surprising given the large number of LSPs who reported offering translation (82.3%) or interpretation services (33.1%). Overall, translation professionals (translators, terminologists, interpreters, writers and editors, and proofreaders) accounted for the majority (94.2%) of reported employees by surveyed LSPs. Language training and testing employees (language instructors) accounted for less than 1% (n = 11, 0.2%) of the reported employees. As expected, the majority of the reported language instructors (n = 8) were employed by those who offered online or in-class language training services. Senior managers and project managers accounted for 3% (n = 182) of reported employees.

The number of LSPs with at least one employee dedicated to using language specific tools by primary services provided is shown in Table 3.27.

Percentages are calculated based on the number of survey respondents who reported at least one employee dedicated to using language specific tools and reported a primary service (n = 189).

Just under one-third (n = 189, 30.1%) of all surveyed LSPs reported having a total of 790 employees who were dedicated to using language-specific tools. Just under three-quarters (72%) of LSPs with at least one employee dedicated to using language-specific tools identified translation services as being their primary services.

The revenue per employees for LSPs is shown in Table 3.28. Since sole proprietors / freelances generally reported a lower revenue than other groups, they were analyzed separately in the table. This also allowed for comparisons of companies in 2016 with those in the 2004 survey.

Total number of respondents: n = 374.

• *Companies include incorporated companies, public corporations, partnerships, nonprofits, cooperatives, and “other” ownership structures.

For LSPs who reported on number of employees and 2015 revenue (n = 374), the average revenue per employee was $69,044.21. The revenue per employee for companies ($90,983.99) was greater than the revenue per employee reported in 2004 ($54,576.00). As expected, revenue per employee was much greater for companies than for sole proprietors / freelances as companies generally reported higher revenues.

LSPs were asked to report the number of employees they anticipated having in 2017 by occupation category. The percent change from 2015 to 2017 for each occupation category is shown in Table 3.29. Only LSPs who reported on their number of employees in both 2015 and 2017 were included in the table (n = 75).

Only survey respondents who provided their number of employees for both 2015 and 2017 were included in the table (n = 75).
Cells with n values of less than 5 were not included in the table.

Similar to 2015, translators were expected to include over half (54.5%) of all the reported language industry’s employees in 2017. When comparing the number of employees reported over both years, LSPs anticipated a 24.2% increase in total employees from 2015 to 2017. LSPs anticipated the greatest increase in terminologists (76.6%), interpreters (71%) and proofreaders (67.9%), and the smallest increase in translators (12.5%).

3.2.2 Language association membership of employees

The distribution of employee membership with different language association, as reported by LSPs, is shown in Table 3.30.

• *Percentages are calculated based on the total number of employees in the industry (n = 6,075).
• **Percentages are calculated based on the total number of LSPs in the study (n = 628).

LSPs reported having a total of 728 employees who were members of at least one professional language association. Ordre des traducteurs, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec (10.1%) and the Canadian Terminologists and Interpreters Council (9.8%) were the most popular reported associations.

3.2.3 Subcontractors in the industry

The total number of subcontractors reported by surveyed LSPs, by ownership structure, is shown in Table 3.31.

• *Companies include incorporated companies, public corporations, partnerships, nonprofits and co-operatives, as well as those identified as “other.”

The total number of subcontractors used by surveyed LSPs was 3,114. This included individual subcontractors (n = 2,366) and contracted companies (n = 748). The total number of subcontractors was approximately half (51.3%) of the total number of employees (6,075). Compared with the 2004 survey, this is proportionally lower. In 2004, businesses reported contracting out work to 6,954 subcontractors and reporting employing 7,405 employees. A total of 395 LSPs reported using subcontractors in the 2016 survey, including approximately three-quarters (82.2%) of companies (incorporated companies, public corporations, partnerships, nonprofits and co-operatives, as well as those identified as “other”) and just over half (56.8%) of sole proprietors / freelances.

3.2.4 Language training and recruitment challenges

LSPs were asked if they have experienced any difficulties in recruiting qualified employees. Although only one-quarter (n = 161, 25.6%) reported difficulty hiring, over half of the surveyed LSPs (n = 363, 57.8%) reported that they work as freelances and one-person businesses that did not do any hiring.

Of the 265 surveyed LSPs (excluding the freelances who do not hire), over one-third (n = 104, 39.2%) reported that they did not have any difficulties recruiting qualified employees. Over half (n = 161, 60.8%) of these LSPs reported that they had difficulties recruiting qualified employees. Difficulties hiring include the variability of skills of applications (16.6%), and “other” difficulties not captured in the survey (17.4%). Fewer LSP respondents reported an insufficient local talent pool (14%) or insufficient technical candidates with sufficient experience (9.8%) as a difficulty. The frequency of difficulties faced by LSPs when recruiting qualified employees is shown in Table 3.32 for those who reported hiring.

• *Percentages are calculated based solely on number of survey respondents who hire (n = 265). Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

LSPs were asked if language training for employees was one of their businesses’ activities. The breakdown of responses is shown in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10 Providing Language Training for Employees

Description of figure 3.10: This pie chart illustrates, by percentage, if language training for employees was an activity of LSPs businesses.

• No language training, 61.9%
• On an ad hoc basis, 34.1%
• An annual learning plan is in place – 4%

Total number of respondents: n = 628.

The majority (n = 389, 61.9%) of LSPs reported that they did not have any language training for their employees. However, it should be noted that these responses include LSPs who work as freelances and do not have any employees. Over one-third (n = 214, 34.1%) of LSPs reported that they had training activities for their employees on an ad hoc basic. Only 4% (n = 25) of the LSPs stated that they had an annual learning plan in place. The type of training provided by those who offer training (n = 239) is shown in Table 3.33.

• *Percentages are calculated based on total number of survey respondents (n = 628). Percentages do not add up to 100% due to multiple responses.

Approximately one-quarter (26.4%) of all surveyed LSPs reported that the training provided was job-specific. Over one-third (13.7%) of LSPs reported that the type of training provided was not specifically listed in the survey options. Under one-sixth (6.4%) reported having second language training.

3.3 Public sector experience

The following section provides the extent and experiences of LSPs working in the public sector with specific feedback on the challenges of working with the federal government.

3.3.1 Service to the public sector

Table 3.34 shows the number and percentage of surveyed LSPs providing services to public sector clients.

• *Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents n = 628. Responses do not add to 100% due to multiple responses.

Over half (58.6%) of the LSPs surveyed reported providing services to the public sector, with provincial (37.9%) and federal (30.6%) sectors being the most common.

The provision of services to the public sector by primary service is shown in Table 3.35.

• *Numbers in “( )” show the number of respondents for each category. Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents (n = 628). Terminology services, dubbing services, localization services, in-class language training services, online language training services, language testing, and language technology goods and services had fewer than 0 to 5 LSPs, so data was suppressed.

Of the services provided to the public sector, translation services were the most frequently reported. LSPs also provided interpretation services and other language industry goods and services to the public sector. It is not possible to determine if the public sector is mostly served by those offering translation or interpretation services, or if this is due to the large number of LSPs in the sample who reported offering these services.

3.3.2 Opinions on working with the federal government

LSPs were asked to indicate if they perceived any challenges with working with the federal government and if so, the extent of the challenges (see Table 3.36).

Total number of survey participants: n = 628.

Just under half (49%) of all LSPs believed that there were challenges associated with working with the federal government. Of LSP respondents who have provided services to the federal government in the last two fiscal periods (n = 192, 30.6%), over two-thirds (63%) believed that working with the federal government was a challenge. About two-thirds of the survey participants (n = 436, 69.4%) stated that they did not provide any services to the federal government. Of those who had not worked for the federal government in the past two years, less than half (42.9%) felt that working with the federal government would be a major challenge.

The breakdown of challenges experienced by LSPs when working with the federal government is shown in Table 3.37.

• *Percentages are calculated based on the total number of LSPs who reported challenges with working with the federal government (n = 308).

Two-thirds (66.6%) of LSPs who reported challenges with working with the federal government identified the paper work required to provide services as one of the challenges. Approximately half (49.4%) of this group of LSPs also identified the limited awareness of procurement opportunities and another half (46.1%) identified contract requirements (e.g., duration of contract, volume) as challenges to working with the federal government.

Section 4: Conclusion and considerations

Malatest synthesized and analyzed the results of the Profile of the Canadian Language Industry 2016 Survey to provide a current snapshot of the Canadian language industry, focusing on the following key aspects: size of the LSPs, geographic distribution, language combinations, service line, source of income, production capacity, adherence to quality standards and use of technolinguistic tools.

Overall, the majority (76%) of LSPs surveyed identified themselves as sole proprietors / freelances. This is significantly greater than in the previous survey, conducted in 2004, in which only 5.8% identified themselves as sole proprietors / freelances. It is not possible to determine if this represents a change in the language industry from 2004 or if this disparity is due to the different recruitment strategies used. The provinces with the highest representation of surveyed LSPs were Quebec (37.5%) and Ontario (26.8%), with the largest proportion of clients served also being primarily located in Ontario (49.5%) and Quebec (42.4%). Over two-thirds (68.8%) of surveyed LSPs reported their main language area of business as translation services, and less than one-fifth (17.7%) reported their main service as interpretation services; however, many LSPs reported offering multiple services.

LSP respondents reported a total of $70.4 million in revenue, the majority (81.8%) of which was accounted for by incorporated companies and public corporations. The total reported revenue generated by LSPs increased (+13.0% from 2011 to 2015), and most LSPs anticipated revenue increased in 2016 (+9%) to 2020 (+19%). This may suggest a growth in business or an increase in service rates.

Over half (58.6%) of LSPs reported having public sector clients in the last two fiscal periods, most commonly with the provincial (37.9%) and federal (30.6%) sectors. Approximately two-thirds (63%) of LSPs who have worked with the federal sector believed that working with the federal government was a challenge. The paperwork required to provide services (66.6%) and the limited awareness of procurement opportunities (49.4%) were commonly reported challenges. When assessing the ability to handle secret or top secret Government of Canada documents, about one-third (31.7%) of LSPs reported having the facilities and employees necessary, and one-fifth (21.5%) reported having the clearance required. These proportions are higher than expected.

The LSPs surveyed reported a total of 6,075 individuals employed in the language industry in 2015, with the majority (76.3%) being part-time employees and under one-quarter (23.7%) being full-time employees. Compared with the 2004 survey, the proportion of full-time employees decreased from 48.3%. This disparity may be due to the large number of sole proprietors / freelances in the 2016 sample, many of which report themselves as part-time employees (21.2%). Significantly more LSPs classified themselves as a small business with only one to four employees in 2016 than in 2004 (93.3% and 55%, respectively). Looking forward to 2017, LSPs anticipated an increase (24.2%) in the number of employees, suggesting a growing business.

A total of 3,114 subcontractors were also employed by surveyed LSPs in 2015 business year, including 2,366 individual subcontractors and 748 contracted companies. The total number of subcontractors was approximately half (51.3%) of the total number of employees (6,075). Compared with the 2004 survey, this is proportionally lower. Approximately three-quarters (82.2%) of companies (incorporated companies, public corporations, partnerships, nonprofits and co-operatives, as well as those identified as “other”) and just over half (56.8%) of sole proprietors / freelances reported hiring subcontracted companies.

With regard to production capacity, the median daily translation capacity was 2,000 words. Just over one-third (36%) of LSPs who offer translation services reported having a daily translation capacity between 1,001 to 2,000. The majority (95.9%) of surveyed LSPs reported being able to work outside normal business hours. Overall, approximately three-quarters (72.5%) of surveyed LSPs reported having quality assurance processes, and almost all (91%) of this group of LSPs reported having more than one process in place. Fewer (42%) surveyed LSPs reported having quality standards certifications.

The majority (79.3%) of LSPs reported keeping abreast of the latest tools and technologies to enhance their language industry services, with the most common method being the use of language association emails (60.7%). In the past five years, Translation Memory (TM) (37.7%), Translation Management Systems (TMSs) (13.5%) and Terminology Management Systems (13.1%) were the most commonly incorporated tool / technology. In the next five years, just over one-third (35.2%) of LSPs reported that they hoped to incorporate a specific tool / technology, with the most commonly reported tool / technology being TM, which was reported by under one-sixth (15.5%) of all surveyed LSPs. LSPs hoped that by incorporating new tools and technologies in the future, they would save time (77.4%) and improve their accuracy (63.8%).

The analysis informed recommendations to support the Translation Bureau in strengthening ties with the language industry.

4.1 Considerations

Necessary language services could be promoted to support language duality

Almost half (48.6%) of surveyed LSPs offer English-to-French language services and over one-third (37.3%) offer French-to-English language services. Even fewer LSPs offer services in other language combinations (e.g. English to Spanish, 10.7%). As one of the Translation Bureau’s goals is to advance linguistic duality in Canada, it appears that more than half of the language industry, as represented by this sample, does not offer the language services between English and French. The Bureau could consider options to promote the provision of English-to-French and French-to-English language services, as well as other important language combination services, to ensure that the language industry can provide the services the Government of Canada requires.

Important quality assurance processes and certification standards could be promoted

The majority (n = 455, 72.5%) of surveyed LSPs reported having quality assurance processes, and of this group, most (73.6%) reported having more than one process in place. Also, just under half (n = 264, 42.0%) of LSPs reported having quality standards, and of these LSPs, just over one-third (37.9%) reported having multiple standards. However, the types of quality assurance processes in place were variable, with proofreading (46.3%), terminology checks (37.9%), bilingual comparative revision (31.4%), client-specific terminology banks (25.3%) and general terminology banks (22.0%) being the most common. The Bureau should consider identifying what quality assurance processes and standards it values most when thinking about outsourcing work to the language industry. Those quality assurance processes and standards could be promoted to LSPs as it is possible that they will not already be incorporated into most language service businesses. This is especially the case for quality standards as so few LSPs reported standards identified in the survey (31.2% of surveyed LSPs selected “other” quality standards certification).

TM appears to be the most valued tool / technology by LSPs

Approximately one-third (37.7%) of all surveyed LSPs reported that they had incorporated TM in the past five years, and approximately one-sixth (15.5%) of LSPs hoped to incorporate it in the next five years. It appears that TM is the most valued tool / technology by surveyed LSPs. The most commonly anticipated results of implementing this tool was saving time (84.5% of those hoping to incorporate TM) and improving accuracy (68%). The Bureau may recognize this tool when outlining procurement strategies to outsource work. Saving time appeared to be the most valued impact by all LSPs who anticipated incorporating a new tool or technology. Therefore, this benefit could be considered when promoting new tools / technologies to the language industry to support uptake.

Some LSPs may not understand the requirements for secret and top secret security clearance required for confidential Government of Canada work

Some surveyed LSPs reported having the security clearance necessary to handle confidential Government work. Approximately one-third of surveyed LSPs reported that they had the employees and facilities (31.7%) and the clearance (21.5%) required for secret or top secret clearance. The amount of LSPs who reported security clearance is greater than expected, especially given the large proportion of freelance LSPs in the sample who may not have the resources necessary for security clearance (e.g. a secured network or equipment). It is possible that surveyed LSPs did not understand the requirements for security clearance.

A large amount of subcontractors are hired by LSPs

The total number of subcontractors used by surveyed LSPs in 2015 was 3,114. This included individual subcontractors (2,366) and contracted companies (748). The total number of subcontractors was approximately half (51.3%) of the total number of employees (6,075). Approximately half (48.9%) of LSPs reported hiring subcontractors, including larger LSP businesses and sole proprietors / freelances. The Bureau should recognize that LSPs may need to use subcontractors, and this should be considered when developing procurement strategies. As LSPs appear to hire individuals and companies to support the completion of work, it may be necessary for this to be considered in requests for service.

Challenges working with the public sector

About one-third (30.6%) of surveyed LSPs have provided services to the federal government in the last two fiscal periods or business years. Of this group, over two-thirds (63%) believed that working with federal government was a challenge. Of the LSPs who did not provide services to the federal government, just under half (42.9%) anticipated that it would be a major challenge. The most commonly reported challenge identified by LSPs was the paperwork required to provide services (66.6%). LSPs also reported on the limited awareness of procurement opportunities (49.4%), the contract requirements (e.g. duration, volume) (46.1%) and the level of compensation provided (43.5%) as challenges to working with the federal government.

4.2 Areas for further research

As mentioned throughout the report, the study findings only represent an overview of the language industry. While it appears that language services (82.3%) and interpretation services (33.1%) are the most commonly offered services, additional research will need to be done to better understand if other language services are offered by LSPs not well represented in the sample. Furthermore, additional analysis should be completed to provide insight into the number of “other language industry goods and services” (31.5%) that LSPs reported. Additional research will provide further understanding as to whether the industry has changed from 2004 to 2016 and, specifically, if there are fewer LSPs offering language training (11.8% in 2016 compared with 41.1% in 2004) and more LSPs offering translation services and interpretation services (62.9% and 16.8% in 2004, respectively).

While it appears that the language industry is growing given that revenues were anticipated to increase over the next five years (+9% from 2015 to 2016; +19% from 2016 to 2020), as well as the number of employees from 2015 to 2017 (24.2% increase), less than one-quarter of surveyed LSPs reported that their business is expanding. Also, the total number of full-time employees has appeared to decrease from 2004 to 2016. Of the LSPs who reported hiring employees, over half (60.8%) reported that they had difficulties recruiting qualified employees, including difficulties due to the variability of skills of applications. This may limit the industry growth predicted by LSPs. Furthermore, it appears that LSPs are only expanding in the areas in which they are already offering services. Over three-quarters (76.7%) of LSPs who expected to expands their translation services also reported currently offering translation services. Similarly, almost (94.7%) all LSPs who reported expansion in the area of interpretation already offer interpretation services. It is unclear, however, if the industry is growing in these areas or if this is due to the overrepresentation of LSPs offering translation services and interpretation services in the survey sample. Additional research will be required to better understand the growth of the industry and, specifically, where LSPs are growing.

Overall, the survey results provide insight into the current Canadian language industry and highlight the broad and diverse community of LSPs with different backgrounds, activities, and goals. Reaching a representative sample of each sub-sector of the industry is challenging. However, with the current profile, the Bureau can continue to estimate the value of activities and characteristics of LSPs, helping inform the outsourcing of language industry services and, subsequently, strengthening the ties between LSPs and the Translation Bureau.

Appendix A: Profile of the Canadian Language Industry 2016 Survey (English)

Profile of Canadian Language Industry 2016 Survey

Thank you for taking the time to complete the Profile of Canadian Language Industry 2016 Survey.

Purpose

The Translation Bureau of the Government of Canada is developing a new business model to coordinate linguistic services across the federal government. The Bureau wishes to strengthen ties with the language industry to increase outsourcing of translation services, improve contract management and adopt modern technolinguistic tools to meet government needs.

Anonymity

Once this survey has been completed, the information will be stored by R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd. (Malatest) in a secure facility. Your responses will not be associated with your name. No one but Malatest will know you participated and how you responded. You will not be identified in any report. All results will be aggregated and reported as a group.

How to complete this questionnaire

As you go through the questionnaire, please be sure to complete each question. Some questions ask you to check all the responses that apply to you; for all other questions, you should check only one response that best answers the question. For questions asking for opinions, please give your own point of view —your opinion is important, and your responses will remain confidential. Please check the box next to your answer(s) or write your answer in the space provided. If you are not certain of an exact answer, please provide your best estimate

Timely response

Please complete the questionnaire by November 21, 2016. You may stop and restart the survey at any time. To access the survey again, go to the following link: translation.malatest.net and enter your pass code. If you have any questions please contact:

Jésaël Lisiecki
translation@malatest.com
1-888-689-1847 ext 102
R.A. Malatest and Associates Ltd.
#500-294 Albert Street
Ottawa, ON  K1P 6E6

Thank you for your participation in this important study.

Can we proceed with the survey?

Continue

Which of the following options applies to you?

1. I work for a language service provider company and can provide information about the company’s services
2. I mainly work as a paid freelancer and can provide information about my services.
3. I mainly work as an employee at an organization, but I also do paid freelance work.
4. I only work as an employee at an organization.

Note to Programmer: If …

• "a" selected, continue with the original survey
• "b" or “c” selected, continue with the survey with the additional "freelance" blurbs
• "d" selected, then END1

END1: Thank you for your willingness to participate in the survey. Unfortunately, this study is not targeting salaried employees of companies/organizations that do not do freelance work on the side.

Note to appear after question for freelancers (“b” or “c”): Please respond to the questionnaire as if you are a one person employer. When answering questions, please only consider the work you do in providing language services as a freelancer.

Note: Please report information for the most recent 12-month fiscal period (business year) for which you have complete financial records.

Section 1: Business Overview

A1a. Please indicate the name and head office address of your business.

Business Name:
Street Number:
Street Name:
City/Town:
Province:
Country:

A1a. POS. What is your position in your organization?

A1b. Do you have any satellite offices or branches?

• No → Go to A2
• Yes → Please identify the number of satellite offices or branches within Canada and the number outside of Canada
  • # Within Canada
  • # Outside Canada

A2a. What is the ownership structure of the business?

• Incorporated company
• Public corporation
• Sole proprietorship
• Partnership
• Nonprofit Corporation (not-for-profit)
• Cooperative
• Other

A2b. In which year was the business started with this structure? [Drop down: years]

A3. Which of the following language services do you provide, and for how many years have you offered each of these services?

Note: This table is only an example and contains no data.

List of services with number of years offered

Services	# of Years Offered
Translation services
Interpretation services
Terminology services
Dubbing services
Localization services
Language training services in classroom
Language training services online
Language testing
Language technology goods and services
Other language industry goods and services → Please describe:

A4. Please identify your main language-industry related area of business. [Recall list of services identified in A3: only those options that are selected by the respondent.]

Note to programmer: Skip this question if only one option is selected in A3.

A5. What is/are the primary location(s) of your clients/customers?

• British Columbia
• Alberta
• Saskatchewan
• Manitoba
• Ontario
• Quebec
• Prince Edward Island
• Nova Scotia
• New Brunswick
• Newfoundland and Labrador
• Yukon
• Nunavut
• Northwest Territories
• United States (anywhere in US)
• Europe
• International (other than US and Europe)

A6. Of your business’s total language-related sales in Canada, what proportion (in %) does each of the following client groups represent?

Note: Please report information for the most recent 12-month fiscal period or business year (e.g., 2015 business year) for which you have complete financial records. (If exact percentages are not available, please provide your best estimate.)

A7. Is your language industry-related business currently expanding in a specific language industry line of business?

• Yes → Please identify the new language industry business line(s): [Use list from A3]
• No → Go to A8

A8. Is your language industry-related business currently expanding in a specific area of expertise?

• Yes → Please identify the specific area(s) of expertise: [Use checklist below]
• No → Go to A9

Checklist includes:

• Administrative and General Services
• Aboriginal Affairs
• Real Estate
• Criminology
• Parliamentary Proceedings
• Employment
• Immigration
• Informatics
• Public Works
• Military
• Social Sciences and Humanities
• Transportation
• Biology
• Legal
• Finance
• Mechanical
• Medicine
• Environmental Sciences
• Natural Sciences
• Technical
• Other → Please identify:

A9. Please provide your language industry-related business revenue and projected language-related revenues for the following taxation years for goods and services.

Note: Please report your annual revenue for each business year (ending in each of the following years if your business year is not the calendar year). Please enter ‘$0, if no revenue in the year.

1. 2011 Revenue $
2. 2015 Revenue $
3. 2016 Projected Revenue $
4. 2020 Projected Revenue $

Note to programmer: Add ‘Don’t know’ for each of the options a to d above.

A10. For the most recent 12-month fiscal period or business year (e.g., 2015 business year) for which you have complete financial records, what was your total revenue in the following categories? (If exact amounts are not available, please provide your best estimate.)

Note to programmer: At least an amount entered in one activity should be mandatory. For options 1 to 10, only those that are selected by the respondent in A3 should show up.

A11. What was the distribution of this business’s language-industry related total sales (in %) to the following markets? (If exact percentages are not available, please provide your best estimate.)

A12. Which English and French language combinations does your business offer?

Note to programmer: Either the source or target language should be English/French. Otherwise, the following message should be shown:

“Invalid entry. Please note that English/French should be either the source or target language.”

A13. Do you have your own quality assurance processes for language industry products and services? Select all that apply. (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Yes → Please identify the processes: [Use checklist below]
• No → Go to A14

Checklist includes:

• All texts are the subject of a bilingual comparative revision by a professional revisor/translator.
• All texts are the subject of a unilingual revision of the translation by a professional revisor/translator.
• All texts are the subject of a bilingual comparative revision by a professional revisor/translator and proofreader.
• All texts are the subject of a unilingual revision of the translation by a professional revisor/translator and proofreader.
• All texts are proof read.
• All texts are the subject of only a sampling by a professional revisor/translator.
• A terminology check is included in the quality control process.
• We have a specific terminology data bank for each of our clients.
• We have a general terminology data bank.
• Terminological searches are made by separate employees, upstream or downstream of the translation process.
• Other → Please identify:

A14. Do you or your staff adhere to any language industry quality standards? (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Yes → Please identify the certifications: [Use checklist below] Select all that apply.
• No → Go to A15

Checklist includes:

• CGSB-131.10: Translation Services Standard
• ISO 17100: Translation Services
• NSGCIS and/or ISO 13611 – National Standard Guide for Community Interpreting Services.
• ISO 9001: Quality Management System Standard.
• Accreditation to Languages Canada Quality Assurance Scheme
• EN 15038
• Interpretation from English into selected CILISAT language
• Interpretation from selected CILISAT language into English
• Sight translation from English into selected CILISAT language
• Sight translation from selected CILISAT language into English
• LICS-CISP
• AVLIC Certificate of Interpretation (COI)
• ISO/DIS 18587.2 Translation services – Post-editing of machine translation output – Requirements
• ISO 704:2009 – Terminology work – Principles and methods
• ISO 860:2007 – Terminology work – Harmonization of concepts and terms
• ISO 1087-1:2000 – Terminology work – Vocabulary – Part 1: Theory and application
• ISO 30042:2008 – Systems to manage terminology, knowledge and content – TermBase eXchange (TBX)
• ISO 10241-1:2011 – Terminological entries in standards – Part 1: General requirements and examples of presentation
• ISO 690:2010 – Information and documentation – Guidelines for bibliographic references and citations to information resources
• Other

Note to programmer: Respondent must check at least one if they answer ‘Yes’ to A14

A15. Are you kept aware of the latest tools/technologies to enhance your language industry services?

• Yes → Please identify how you are kept aware of new tools and technologies [Use checklist below] Select all that apply.
• No → Go to A16a

Checklist includes:

• Magazines/Newsletters → Please specify:
• Conferences → Please specify:
• Word of mouth → Please specify:
• Internet searches → Please specify:
• Language association emails → Please specify:
• Other → Please specify:

A16a. Has your business incorporated tools/technologies to enhance your language industry services in the past five years? (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Yes → Please identify the tools you have incorporated in the past 5 years [Use checklist below] Select all that apply.
• No → Go to A16b

Checklist includes:

• Content Management Systems (CMS)
• Translation Management Systems (TMS)
• Terminology Management Systems
• Translation Memory (TM)
• Machine Translation (MT)
• Rule-based Machine Translation (RbMT)
• Statistical Machine Translation (SMT)
• Other → Please specify:

A16b. Please identify any language industry tools/technologies you hope to incorporate into your business in the next five years. Select all that apply. (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Content Management Systems (CMS)
• Translation Management Systems (TMS)
• Terminology Management Systems
• Translation Memory (TM)
• Machine Translation (MT)
• Rule-based Machine Translation (RbMT)
• Statistical Machine Translation (SMT)
• Other → Please identify:
• Do not plan to incorporate any new tools/technologies into my business in the next 5 years → Skip to A18
• Don't know → Go to A18

A17. For the tools and technologies you hope to incorporate into your business in the next five years, what do you anticipate to be the impact? Select all that apply. (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Save money
• Save time
• Improve accuracy
• Increase business
• Increase competitiveness
• Other → Please describe:

A18. Do you have the capacity to work outside normal business hours (e.g., evenings and week-ends)? (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Yes
• No

A19. Does your business have the employees and facilities required to handle Secret or Top Secret texts and the Government of Canada’s clearance to process them? (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

A20. How do you determine charges for language-related work? Select all that apply. (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Per word
• Per hour
• Per word and per hour, if using weighted rates (translation memory)
• Other → Please describe:

A21. How do you account for project management time and/or other expenses (e.g., overhead)? (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Within rate charge
• A separate charge
• Not charged

Provide clarification if necessary:

Section 2: Human Resources

Note: Please report information for the most recent 12-month fiscal period or business year (e.g., 2015 business year) for which you have complete financial records.

• Employee refers to any person drawing pay for services rendered or for paid absences and for whom the employer must complete a Canada Revenue Agency T-4 supplementary form.
• Include partners and working proprietors.
• Exclude contract workers.

B1. Please indicate the number of language industry employees, by type for the most recent 12-month fiscal period (e.g., 2015 business year).

Note: This table is only an example and contains no data.

B2. What is your daily capacity of words translated? words/day (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

• Don't know

B3a. Please indicate the total number of language industry employees for the most recent 12-month fiscal period (e.g., 2015 business year) by occupation. Please also indicate the number of employees you expect to have in the next business year (e.g., 2017 business year).
(Count each employee only once.)

If an employee can be placed into more than one category, please choose the category that best reflects the majority of his/her duties.

Note: This table is only an example and contains no data.

Note to programmer: Total is auto filled based on responses for 1 – 15. Total for 2015 business year must match B1 total. If total 2015 is not equal to total 2016, move to B3b, otherwise, skip to B3c.

B3b. Please explain why a change in the number of employees is expected from 2015 to 2017:

B3c. How many of your employees are dedicated to using language-specific tools?
(Please enter “0” if you do not have any employees in this position) (Do not ask if QA3 = 6, 7, or 8)

# of employees:

Note to programmer: The entry has to be a number (Do not accept text).

B4. Are your language industry employees members of any of the following associations? If so, please indicate how many are members of each of the following associations. Please enter "0" if none are members.

Note: This table is only an example and contains no data.

B5. How many contract language industry workers/companies did this business employ during the 2015 business year?

If none were employed, please indicate zero (0). Please do not identify the number of workers within the companies identified (i.e., companies and individuals sub-contracted should be mutually exclusive).

• Number of companies
• Number of individuals sub-contracted
• Total [Auto-fill]

B6. Does this business have any difficulty recruiting qualified language industry employees? If so, why?

• No difficulty
• Insufficient local talent pool
• Insufficient technical candidates with sufficient experience
• Variability in skills of applicants
• Other → Please describe:

B7. Is providing language training for employees an activity of this business?

• Yes, an annual learning plan is in place → Please describe the type of training provided [Use the checklist below]
• Yes, on an ad hoc basis → Please describe the type of training provided [Use the checklist below]
• No → Go to C1

Checklist includes:

• Second language
• Job specific (e.g., technical, sciences, legal)
• Other → Please describe:

Section 3: Profile Sector Opportunities

C1. Has your business provided language industry services to any of the following public sectors in the last two fiscal periods or business years? Select all that apply.

• Federal
• Provincial
• Municipal
• Crown agencies (federal or provincial)
• None of the above

C2a. To what extent do you feel there are challenges working with the federal government doing language industry business?

• Not a challenge → Go to C3
• Somewhat of a challenge
• A major challenge
• Don’t know → Go to C3

C2b. What do you see as challenges or barriers to doing language industry business with the federal government? Select all that apply.

• Limited awareness of procurement opportunities
• Paper work required to provide services
• Level of compensation provided
• Timeliness of receiving payment
• Contract requirements (e.g., duration of contract, volume)
• Security clearance required to handle sensitive documents
• Turnaround time
• Value of contract
• Unable to meet requirements for specialized services
• Other → Please describe:

C3. Please provide input on how the federal government could better support your participation in federal language industry contracts.

Section 4: Other Comments

D1. Do you have any other comments you would like to provide regarding your language industry business?

Thank you for completing the survey!

Appendix B: Sampling and methodology

Sample size: 6,001

Sampling procedure

Malatest used two sampling approaches for this project in order to develop as accurate a profile of the industry as possible:

The first sample of LSPs was obtained through professional associations that had their member information available online. These records were manually collected and uploaded into the Computer Assisted Telephone/Web (CATI/CAWI) software, CallWeb, where they were used for direct survey administration. This uploaded sample was checked for duplicates as Malatest was aware that some LSPs were members of more than one professional association.

The second sampling approach was implemented to reach LSPs whose information was not provided by professional associations (e.g., owing to privacy concerns). Malatest provided the professional associations with an email script to send to their members, inviting them to participate in the survey online or by phone. Those who wished to complete the survey online were required to contact Malatest to receive a unique passcode for the survey. Through this method, Malatest monitored survey completions. This sample was cross-referenced with the first sample to ensure that no LSPs completed the survey twice—once through an invitation from Malatest and once through their respective professional association(s).

Malatest approached a total of 15 professional associations using the approved communication materials. Initial contact was made via email and telephone follow-up was conducted, when necessary.

Following initial contact with the professional associations, Malatest recorded all publicly available member lists from all association websites. These lists were then merged into a single sample and uploaded into Malatest’s CallWeb software. This sample was checked for duplicates.

Malatest also worked with language associations to determine if they were willing and able to provide information about the survey to their members. Those who agreed sent email requests to their members, inviting them to participate in the survey.

A major portion (61%) of the sample was obtained through the information that was publicly available. The remainder (39%) was achieved from survey information distributed by language associations to their members.

Malatest relied on non-probability sampling, where all LSPs from publicly available language association contact lists were recruited. Similarly, participating language associations were asked to send email invitations and survey links to all of their members. This method of recruitment was used with the existing contact lists of LSPs. However, it resulted in a large proportion of sole proprietors / freelances in the sample. It is not possible to determine if this is representative of the industry or a result of the sampling method. As a result, the survey results cannot be projected to the entire population of language service providers. However, the results did inform considerations to help inform the outsourcing of language industry services.

Survey screener

Only those who could speak to their LSP business were asked to complete the survey. A survey screener was designed to ensure the most appropriate population was being targeted. However, the screener was not implemented until after the pre-test administration. Therefore, approximately one-quarter (23.4%) of respondents were not asked the screener question.

• *The screener was not implemented until after the survey’s pre-test administration. As a result, this information is not available for businesses that completed the survey during this period (n = 147).

Response rate

Of the 6,001 LSPs in the sample, Malatest obtained 628 (10.5% response rate) survey completions. Response rate was calculated by dividing the number of completed surveys (n = 628) by the sample (n = 6,001). The majority (598 or 95%) of participating LSPs completed the 2016 survey online, while 30 (5%) completed the survey by phone.

A discussion of the potential for non-response bias

A key challenge of the study was reaching the LSPs in Canada who were members of professional associations to invite them to participate in the survey. Access to professionals is a common challenge for businesses such as LSPs. As previously described, Malatest approached the language industry professional associations to ask them for access to their member directories. Most of the associations were concerned about the privacy implications of providing member information, resulting in some organizations declining access. As a result, Malatest developed a sample list of LSPs (n = 3,680) whose information was publicly available. These cases were contacted directly by Malatest. Malatest also worked with each of the associations and asked them to contact their members and provide support to facilitate survey completion.

Some LSPs were members of multiple associations, which meant that they appeared more than once in the sampling frame. The developed sampling frame was checked for duplicates with different methods to reduce the risk of duplicates in the sample. If duplicates were found, the duplicate case was removed, and the sample was updated.