ISO 17100 explained for buyers

What ISO 17100 covers

ISO 17100:2015 covers the resources and processes needed to deliver translation services that meet agreed specifications. Its scope includes work before, during and after production. The ISO catalogue identifies a 2017 amendment concerning translator qualifications. The standard is a voluntary service framework, rather than a law giving a translator authority to certify documents. Standards information checked 31 October 2026.

For procurement, the practical question is what the provider will do for the particular order. The quality page records Babylon Translations’ verified certifications, including DIN EN ISO 17100. A buyer comparing providers should still examine certificate scope, applicable service and the written project agreement. A certificate logo alone does not describe file preparation, optional stages or client approval responsibilities.

A useful evaluation separates three forms of evidence: organisational certification, personnel competence and the record of the commissioned workflow. Each answers a different question. A provider can explain its process without disclosing confidential translator records, for example by describing how qualifications are verified, who allocates work and how completion of the required stages is recorded.

Translator competence is broader than bilingual ability

The standard identifies translation, linguistic and textual, research, cultural, technical and domain competences. A translator needs to understand meaning, produce suitable target-language text, research uncertain points and work with the relevant tools and subject matter. Fluency in two languages alone does not establish the ability to translate a specialised document accurately.

Amendment 1:2017 sets documented qualification routes. These include a recognised higher-education degree in translation, linguistics or language studies, or an equivalent degree with significant translation training; another degree plus the equivalent of two years’ full-time professional translation experience; or the equivalent of five years’ full-time professional translation experience. These are alternative routes, rather than cumulative requirements.

For a buyer, experience should be relevant to the document’s subject and intended use. A linguist familiar with consumer marketing may need different knowledge for a maintenance procedure. Questions about domain competence are therefore more useful than a general request for the largest possible translator database. Procurement should ask how assignments are matched to the subject and language direction.

Translation and the translator’s own check

The translator produces the target text and checks the work before it goes to revision. That self-check is valuable because the translator can identify omissions, inconsistent choices and unresolved questions while the source context is fresh. It remains the work of the same person, so it does not fulfil the separate second-person revision stage.

Buyers can support this stage with a stable source, an approved terminology list and clear reference priorities. An ambiguous diagram or contradictory instruction is a source question, not an invitation to guess. A query process should distinguish information needed before translation can continue from a preference that can be settled at review.

Revision by a second person is mandatory

Revision compares the target text with its source and assesses its suitability for the agreed purpose. ISO 17100 requires a person other than the translator to carry it out. Revisers need the relevant translator competences and qualifications, together with translation or revision experience in the domain concerned. Automated checks can support the work but cannot replace this role.

A buyer can ask how revision findings are handled and how final changes reach the deliverable. The important operational point is that a flagged problem has an owner and a recorded resolution. If corrections are made after revision, the project needs a way to avoid reintroducing errors during replacement, export or final file assembly.

Revision is not a statistical sample of fluent-looking paragraphs. It is a defined bilingual stage within the standard’s workflow. A quote for translation alone and a quote for translation with independent revision should therefore be compared as different scopes. The lowest headline word rate may conceal that difference unless the stages are written out.

Optional review and proofreading need precise scope

Review focuses on the target text’s suitability for its purpose and subject conventions. It can be useful when a domain specialist needs to assess how a document reads for the intended audience. Proofreading deals with proofs before publication. Neither term should be used as a catch-all description for every possible language, technical and layout check.

The buyer should identify the actual review object: an editable bilingual file, a target-only document, a designed PDF or a functioning interface. A linguist cannot verify a clipped button label from a spreadsheet that contains no screenshot or running application. Optional checks become useful when the material, criteria, responsibility and delivery point are all specified.

Project management and client agreements

Preparation includes establishing project requirements, feasibility, resources and specifications. The agreement should identify languages, purpose, deliverables and other relevant conditions. Project management connects these instructions to the people doing the work. Final verification then checks that the agreed service has been completed before delivery. Post-delivery handling also matters when feedback or a correction request arrives.

A written brief should settle who approves terminology, how questions are answered and how source changes affect scope. The business translation guide gives a practical preparation checklist. A standard supplies a process framework; a usable project agreement supplies the document-specific instructions that make that framework effective.

Supplier evaluation can request a redacted example of a project handoff, a description of change handling and an explanation of how independent revision is assigned. These questions test the connection between policy and production. They are more informative than asking for an assurance that every possible error will be prevented.

ISO 9001 and ISO 18587 answer different questions

ISO 9001 concerns quality management across an organisation. It addresses the management system rather than prescribing the same translation-specific sequence as ISO 17100. Buyers should assess the certified scope and ask how the system applies to language work. Certification to one standard should not be treated as automatic evidence of conformity to another.

ISO 18587:2017 concerns full human post-editing of machine-translation output and post-editor competence. ISO 17100 excludes raw machine-translation output plus post-editing from its scope. A project using machine output therefore needs an explicit process description. The machine translation post-editing page explains that service separately. Standards scope checked 31 October 2026.

A procurement questionnaire should ask whether machine translation is proposed, which content is included, how permission is recorded and which quality criteria apply. It should also distinguish tools that retrieve approved translations from systems that generate new output. A CAT tool can support a human translation workflow without introducing machine translation at all.

Questions that make a provider comparison useful

The buyer should ask which entity and activities the certificate covers, which standard and edition appear on it, and how currency can be checked with the issuer. No certificate number or expiry date should be inferred from an image that does not show it clearly. The project agreement should identify the process being purchased for the actual files.

Further questions should cover subject competence, second-person revision, terminology conflicts, optional review, feedback and responsibility for changes after delivery. The quote comparison guide helps connect these stages to commercial scope. A comparable proposal makes inclusions and exclusions visible before a rate is assessed.