How to Brief a Translation Provider for an Institutional Report

At minimum, state what the report is for, who will read it, which source version is approved, the source and target languages, the required files, the review route and the date each deliverable is needed. Add the terminology and reference material that should guide the work, and identify one person who can resolve questions.

Language direction alone is not enough. An English version for an international board may need different explanations from an English version intended for a specialist donor team. Likewise, an Arabic report for publication may require approved institutional names and public-facing wording, while an internal working translation may prioritise speed and an editable format. Describe the decision the reader should be able to make after reading the translated report.

If a procurement form asks only for page count and language pair, attach a content brief. Price and timing depend on more than pages: editable text, scanned annexes, tables, graphics, specialist terminology, layout and review expectations can all change the work required. Ask the provider to state assumptions and exclusions in the proposal.

Create one source folder and an inventory that lists the main report, annexes, tables, captions and linked material. Mark the file that controls the text and remove obsolete versions from the active folder. If the report is still being edited, label it clearly and agree a cut-off or change-control process rather than allowing silent replacements.

Provide editable source files where they exist. A PDF is useful for showing the intended appearance, but it may not expose text in charts, diagrams or scanned pages. If numbers in a chart must be recreated or translated text must be placed back into artwork, say so. Do not assume that translation of the report body automatically includes rebuilding every graphic.

Use a simple version label and send a change note for each replacement: which file changed, which passages changed and whether previous translation work should be updated. A shared folder can distribute files, but it does not by itself establish which version is approved.

Give the provider material that answers real language questions: an approved glossary, previous final reports, official names of programmes and institutions, acronyms, style guidance and links to authoritative public references. Identify which references are binding and which are examples. A large archive without priorities can create more uncertainty than a short, curated pack.

Flag terms that must remain in the source language, names that have an official Arabic or English form and expressions that are still awaiting a decision. When two earlier reports use different wording, choose the preferred form or authorise the reviewer to decide. Do not present automatically extracted terminology as approved unless a responsible person has checked it.

Clear, consistent source writing also matters. Resolve obvious contradictions, unexplained abbreviations and incomplete captions before handover where possible. If they must remain, tell the provider whether to query them, reproduce them faithfully or add an agreed editorial note.

List each output separately. Examples include an editable translated document, a laid-out PDF, translated tables, a bilingual terminology list or a web-ready excerpt. Specify whether hyperlinks, footnotes, references, headers, alt text and document properties are within scope. If publication layout is required, provide the template, fonts and brand rules that the provider is authorised to use.

For restricted reports, agree who may receive the files, how access will be granted and any return, retention or deletion requirement. Give the translation team access to the references it is expected to follow; a protected link that the assigned team cannot open is not a usable reference. Do not include personal or confidential material that is unnecessary for the assignment.

Ask how translation, editing, proofreading and formatting are separated in the proposed workflow. ISO 17100 describes requirements for core translation processes and resources, but referencing the standard is not evidence that a provider is certified to it. If certification is a procurement requirement, request current, verifiable evidence rather than assuming it from general quality language.

Name a subject reviewer for factual and technical questions, a language reviewer for terminology and style where needed, and one person authorised to approve the final version. In a small team, one person may hold more than one role; the important point is that the provider knows whose decision controls when comments conflict.

Collect internal comments into one marked file or agreed review system. Distinguish corrections from preferences and explain changes to recurring terminology so they can be applied consistently. Parallel reviewers returning separate documents can create contradictory edits and conceal which version is final.

Plan time for translation, provider review, client review, query resolution, layout and final proof. A source change after translation begins may affect both cost and delivery. Agree how the provider will assess the effect before accepting the change, especially when it alters figures, conclusions or repeated terminology.

This is a hypothetical planning example, not a Linguative client project. An institution needs an Arabic annual report translated into English for international partners. The package contains a 60-page editable document, an approved PDF, three Excel tables and six charts whose labels are embedded in design files. An executive summary will also be published online.

The brief identifies the approved Arabic file and the cut-off date for source edits. It requests an edited English document, updated chart labels supplied as a separate table, a laid-out English PDF and a web-ready executive summary. It includes approved English names, the previous year's final report and a short glossary. One programme specialist answers factual queries; the communications lead consolidates comments and approves the final English wording.

The provider can now quote against visible assumptions: the charts require translation but not artwork editing unless added, the tables must be checked against the source, and the web summary is a separate deliverable. If the institution later replaces the financial section, both sides have a route to identify the affected text and revise timing before work continues.

Linguative provides institutional translation with editing, proofreading and formatting where agreed. A proposal should still describe the exact documents, review steps and deliverables for this assignment; the value of one accountable language team depends on a clear written scope.