A translation job looks like the job of a single person: the text goes out, the text comes back. In between there are at least five different roles, and when they are not defined some of them are left without an owner.
The requester
This is the person who needs the text and knows where it is going to be used. They are the only person who can write the translation brief; the coordinating department in between forwards the file but cannot carry the context.
The coordinator
This is the role that gathers the request, conducts communication with the supplier and follows the schedule. In small organisations it may merge with the requester, but the fact that it has merged should be written down.
The production side
The person or the team that does the translation. Who holds this role and how they were selected is stated clearly to the organisation; the expression "our team" is not a definition of a role.
The review side
A second person of the same competence who has not done the translation. This is the role that is left empty most often on tight schedules, and more often than not nobody is told that it has been left empty.
The content approver
The organisation's own expert. They verify the terminology and the facts. They do not take the place of the review side; they answer a different question.
Roles are not persons
One person can take on more than one role. The problem is not that roles merge but that they have never been defined at all. A defined role stays in place when the person leaves too.
The role left vacant most often is the approver
The text is delivered, nobody approves it, and the document is used just as it is. When a problem arises, people look for who holds the approval, and it cannot be found.
Counter-view: this many roles is too much for a small job
Defining five roles for a short document looks disproportionate, and this objection is justified. But defining does not mean assigning a separate person to each role; it is enough to write down which roles the single person takes on.
The backup is defined too
If it is not written down in advance to whom the role will pass in periods of leave and of heavy workload, the flow stops. A role without a backup gives the same result as a role that has not been defined.
The number of contact persons is kept limited
Talking to more than one person on the supplier's side produces a loss of information. A single contact person gathers the information in one place and makes record keeping easier.
Decision-making authority is written down separately
If it is not defined who can take decisions on a change of scope, on extra time and on the fee, then at every change the flow goes up to senior management and slows down.
The roles are shared with the supplier
The other side needs to know whom it will put its queries to and from whom it will expect approval. An allocation that is clear inside the organisation is of no use when it is not shared.
A one-page table is enough
Role, person, backup and communication channel. A table of four columns does more work than long process documents, and it really does get updated.
The allocation is reviewed periodically
People change, departments are restructured. A table of roles that is not updated points to the wrong person in the first urgent situation.
Takeaway
The allocation of roles is not a bureaucratic detail; it is the thing that determines which step will be left without an owner at squeezed moments. When it is written on a single page who holds the five roles, who the backups are and where decision-making authority sits, the steps that get skipped are no longer left to chance.