People who want to improve translation processes generally look for support by explaining the detail of the process. At management level this explanation rarely works.
The current situation is described in numbers
The total volume, the scattered state of the work and examples of duplicate jobs produce a concrete picture. This picture is far more effective than explaining how the process is to be set up.
The number is more often than not surprising
The total expenditure and volume are generally far from the common estimate inside the organisation. This difference forms a justification of its own accord.
The language of risk is used
Data protection, the risk of error in documents that give rise to obligations and dependence on a supplier are subjects that find a direct response at management level.
A small number of decisions is asked for
Where the budget is to sit, to whom the assets are to belong and who is to be the owner of the process. Three decisions are more likely to be taken than dozens of detailed proposals.
A pilot result is presented
A small gain measured in one department is more persuasive than an estimate made for the organisation as a whole.
What is described is the loss, not the cost
It is not the cost of the improvement that is brought to the fore, it is the continuing cost of not making the improvement.
It is presented briefly
A proposal that runs to more than one page noticeably lowers the likelihood of its being read at senior level.
Counter-view: it can be done without management support too
It is true that small improvements can be applied quietly, and more often than not that is the right start. But decisions such as the place of the budget, ownership of the assets and ownership of the process are at management level; a system set up without these decisions remains dependent on a person and falls apart when that person leaves.
Visibility is provided regularly
A short quarterly summary keeps the process on the management agenda and makes the next decision easier.
What was promised is measured
Measuring and reporting afterwards the gain that was stated when support was obtained determines the credibility of the next request.
The support of other departments is obtained first
A joint request from departments such as legal, procurement or finance carries more weight than the proposal of a single person.
Timing matters
A proposal made in the budget period or immediately after a problem has occurred finds more of a response than one made in an ordinary period.
It is asked for in stages
Instead of asking for the whole structure to be approved at a stroke, obtaining a small approval for the first step is more realistic.
The request for ownership is made explicitly
Support obtained without deciding whose responsibility the process is to be remains without effect in practice.
Comparative information strengthens the case
Information about how organisations of a similar scale work prevents the proposal from looking unusual. This information is not conclusive evidence, but it noticeably reduces the hesitation that stands in front of the decision.
Takeaway
Management support is won not with an account of the process but with a measured current situation and a small number of clear decisions. Putting the number first, using the language of risk, focusing on three decisions and presenting a pilot result: these four noticeably raise the likelihood of approval.