Once teams understand what iorad is and when it should be used, the next question usually comes quickly:
“Who is actually responsible for this?”
Without some clarity around roles and ownership, even the best rollout can stall. People hesitate to create content because they’re unsure if it’s their job. Others create tutorials but don’t know who should review or maintain them. Over time, this leads to gaps, duplicates, or content that no one feels accountable for.
This section helps you establish a simple participation model so iorad can scale without creating confusion or bottlenecks.
One of the most important things to communicate internally is that iorad supports different levels of involvement.
Most organizations naturally fall into three broad groups:
Normalizing this early helps reduce anxiety. No one is being asked to become an expert overnight, and no one is expected to do everything.
You don’t need a complex role model, but it does help to define a few core responsibilities. Many teams start with something like this and adapt over time.
Creators are typically the people closest to the work. They capture workflows, edit step text, and make sure tutorials reflect how a process is actually performed. In some cases, creators are enablement or operations team members. In others, they are subject-matter experts capturing their own workflows.
Reviewers are responsible for checking accuracy and clarity. They make sure steps are correct, language is clear, and sensitive information has been handled appropriately. Reviewers are often process owners, team leads, or experienced users.
Approvers provide final sign-off before tutorials are shared more broadly or exported. In regulated or high-risk environments, this role may sit with compliance, risk, or enablement leadership. In less regulated teams, this may be a lightweight final check.
You don’t need to formalize every role on day one. The goal is simply to make it clear that content doesn’t live in a vacuum and that some level of review and ownership exists.