The benefits of managing source terminology in the software industry are far-reaching. Aside from any monetary savings, when a company documents its terminology it can ensure a better quality localized product, provide a less intimidating and easier-to-use environment for customers, and enhance the company's reputation for trustworthiness. By actively managing and standardizing their own terminology, larger software companies may be able to develop and coordinate cross-industry standard terminology, which would benefit the industry as a whole.

Managed source terminology ensures easier (and therefore less costly) software localization. It also contributes to a more user-friendly localized product, which may have an effect on how that product is perceived in a local market. It is important to multiply the impact of clear and standard source terminology by the number of languages that a software company supports. By ensuring standard, clear source terminology a company may be impacting products in 20, 30, 50 or more languages. Note that a software company cannot immediately ship localized versions (“sim ship" versions) of high quality and refuse to manage source terminology. Also, in order to take full advantage of the next wave in localization, machine translation, a company must maintain documented (and consistent) source-language terminology.

When a company manages its source terminology, it is easier for customers to use that company’s software, because they do not run into cognitive barriers posed by multiple synonyms and cases where the same term represents different or overlapping concepts. In the course of my volunteer work as a computer tutor at the North Seattle Family Center, I have had several interactions in which people asked me the difference between "close" and "quit." After researching this issue, I discovered that in most cases there is no specific reason why both of these terms are used. In most contexts they do mean the same thing. However, in some applications these terms can mean different things (stop and do not save changes versus stop and save changes). But this distinction is so fine as to be of no use to the majority of users. By using these two terms where one would do, a company (in this case Microsoft) makes the program appear to be more complex than it really is. If these terms had been caught early on and standardized within and across products, the user would not be confused.

After a company begins to manage its source-language terminology, it becomes possible for that company to provide a single source of those terms (including definitions). Maintaining a single source of terms and definitions allows a company to reuse terms and definitions across products, ensuring consistent glossaries. A single source also provides a common point of reference for any employee working on sales, marketing, development, or documentation materials. Suddenly, the company has the potential to speak with one voice. This is a big benefit for customers, who will not be required to learn so many new terms with each new product. The customer also benefits if the company can publish a single, consistent source of terms and definitions for those both inside and outside the company to use.