The pitfalls of using machine translation in the construction industry
Why technical communication needs expertise - not automation.
The construction industry is quietly losing expertise.
Machine translation has become a default tool in many technical departments. It’s fast, it’s cheap, and it produces English that looks fluent enough to pass a casual glance. But construction writing is not a casual matter, it has technical, regulatory, commercial, and risk‑bearing consequences.
When organisations choose machine output over human translators, they are not simply changing how texts are produced, they are changing who carries responsibility.
And increasingly, that responsibility is being pushed onto translators - without the flexibility, support, or compensation required to carry it.
This series of articles is my response.
Why I wrote this series
IIn recent projects, I’ve seen:
- agencies unable to provide technical contacts
- clients unable to answer terminology questions
- machine translation used as the first and last step
- sloppy German source texts fed directly into MT
- translators asked to “fix” everything at the end
- downward pressure on pricing despite rising complexity
-
- commercial MT providers hyping “AI quality” while downskilling the profession
The assumption appears to be:
“If we use machine translation, we automatically halve translation costs.”
But in reality it's the opposite.
Machine translation introduces errors that should never have been there in the first place, and conscientious translators are forced to repair them - often at rates that do not reflect the expertise required.
This is not sustainable. This is not safe. And this is not fair.
So I decided to fight back - with evidence.
The article series – addressing the expertise gap...
1.
Sloppy source text meets machine translation
How imprecise German technical writing has knock-on effects that MT cannot detect - and only a human can fix.
2.
Terminology clunkers
Six real-life examples showing how MT mistranslates construction terminology: from Kaltwassergewinnung to Estrichüberdeckung to Wohnungstrenndecken. Fluent English, technically wrong.
3.
Why long German sentences and machine translation destabilise texts
German technical prose is hierarchical, whereas English is linear. MT preserves structure instead of meaning - with dangerous results.
4.
Risks and consequences
When MT distorts technical meaning, the building is wrong. Installation, compliance, acoustic performance, thermal behaviour, fire separation – all at risk.
5.
Marketing nuance and intent
Construction texts describe technical aspects and fact. But that's not all they do. They persuade. MT cannot translate tone, contrast, metaphor, or commercial intent.
6.
The future problem: loss of expertise
What happens when technical communication is de‑skilled? When agencies stop maintaining terminology? When clients stop providing technical contacts? When MT becomes the default?
Expertise disappears – and risk takes its place.
Why this matters...
The problem with machine translation is not necessarily bad output, it is output that sounds good but is wrong.
It produces:
- fluent nonsense
- plausible mistranslations
- terminological distortions
- structural misunderstandings
- marketing language that loses its impact
- documentation that looks correct but isn’t
And because it looks correct, organisations trust it.
This is the real danger.
Why translators must speak up
Downward pressure on pricing means translators are often expected to:
- repair MT output
- correct sloppy source texts
- resolve terminology conflicts
- interpret technical intent
- carry responsibility for accuracy
…all while being paid less.
Agencies set low rates and leave it to translators to “sort it out”.
Commercial MT providers hype their services while downskilling the profession. Clients assume MT is “good enough” because the English looks fluent.
It’s time to act.
My goal
To show – clearly, and with real examples – that:
- machine translation cannot replace expertise
- technical communication requires human judgement
- construction terminology is not dictionary vocabulary
- marketing nuance cannot be automated
- risk‑bearing texts need professionals
- translators deserve fair compensation for the expertise they provide
Please note: this series is not an attack on technology! It is a defence of expertise, accuracy, and professional integrity, which are all the desired attributes and aptitudes of a professional translator working in a specialist field.
Explore the series – starting on the 19th October:
[Link to Article 1]
[Link to Article 2]
[Link to Article 3]
[Link to Article 4]
[Link to Article 5]
[Link to Article 6]
Final message
By denigrating the role of translators or eliminating them altogether, machine translation also removes expertise from the process. The result is a technical communication vacuum filled with risk and public embarrassment.
This series is my contribution to restoring that expertise – and to ensuring that technical communication in the construction industry remains accurate, safe, and professionally respected.