Who Is Responsible for What in Live Event Production?

The gap can sit between capable teams

The venue has screens. The video supplier has playback equipment. The client has a presentation. That still leaves questions: who receives the final file, checks it, connects playback to the venue system and operates it during the show?

Each team may understand its own work while the connection between them remains unassigned.

A requirement is not resolved because everyone assumes somebody else owns it.

In live event production, the useful question is not only which companies are involved. It is what each has agreed to do and how their work fits together.

Start with the requirement, then assign the work

A responsibility discussion needs something specific to resolve. “Video” is too broad if the event includes presentations, a remote interview, recording and screens in several rooms.

Break the requirement into work that can be understood and confirmed. For the remote interview, that could include receiving the contributor's details, arranging a test, connecting the call, routing room audio, displaying the remote picture and operating the session.

For each relevant requirement, establish:

• who provides the equipment, content or information;
• who prepares and operates it;
• who can approve the requirement or a proposed change;
• who coordinates the dependencies with other teams;
• when the information or work must be ready.

One person or organisation may fulfil several of these functions. They may also be split between teams. The point is to make the arrangement explicit, not to create more job titles.

What the participants may contribute

There is no single allocation that fits every event. The following are questions to discuss, not automatic assignments.

Client or organiser. Who confirms the event's purpose, programme, budget decisions, presenters and content? Who has authority to approve a change when it affects the event? Information supplied by the client may still need production review before it is executable.

Agency or producer. Where involved, does this team coordinate the programme, creative direction, guest experience or broader event delivery? Which technical and operational responsibilities are included, and which sit with other appointed teams?

Venue. Who confirms access, the exact event space, working restrictions and the use of installed facilities? If equipment is described as included, what is available, who operates it and how may external systems connect? Venue availability should not be mistaken for confirmation that a resource meets the event requirement.

Production leadership. Who maintains the shared production picture, resolves interfaces and keeps the current plan coordinated? A Production Manager may fulfil this function within an agreed scope. It may instead sit with experienced internal, agency or supplier leadership. Coordination does not automatically give that person authority to approve every cost or specialist decision.

Technical suppliers. What has each agreed to supply, prepare, operate and remove? Who owns the interfaces between their systems and others? Sound, lighting, video, staging and backline can have different scopes even when one supplier provides several departments.

Artist team. Who provides the current technical rider, confirms artist-carried equipment and approves alternatives? Who communicates changes to the people preparing the show?

Stage management and show operation. Who coordinates stage activity, performers, transitions and cues? How does that function communicate with the technical teams and production leadership? Titles and boundaries vary; stage coordination should not silently become responsibility for every production task.

Technical direction may also have a distinct role in system integration and technical delivery. Agree how it relates to wider production coordination rather than inferring authority from the title.

Production coordination does not replace the specialist assessment or approval required for the systems involved. When a decision needs specialist competence or venue approval, identify the appropriate person and include that interface in the plan.

Check the interfaces, not just the departments

A department list can miss the work between departments. Consider a remote presenter whose picture must appear on a screen and whose voice must reach the room.

The video team might manage the incoming picture, while sound handles the audience audio. Someone must still confirm whether the presenter needs to hear the room, who operates the call, who runs the test and how both teams receive the current requirement.

This is an illustrative example, not a prescribed system design. The technical solution depends on the event. Its lesson is that shared work needs an agreed arrangement.

Useful interface questions include:

• What does this team need from another team before it can proceed?
• Who provides that input, and by when?
• Who confirms that the connection works for the programme?
• What happens if the requirement changes?

Resolve these questions during production advance, rather than relying on teams to discover every dependency during setup.

Keep a usable responsibility record

The record does not need to be elaborate. It needs to describe the current agreement clearly enough for the people delivering it.

For example:

Presentation playback. Provide: Client provides final content. Prepare and operate: Named playback team. Confirm: Named client approver confirms content; technical team checks playback. Dependency or open question: File delivery time and venue screen connection.

Artist backline. Provide: Agreed local supplier and artist-carried items. Prepare and operate: Agreed technicians. Confirm: Authorised artist contact approves requirement or alternative. Dependency or open question: Current rider and approved substitution list.

Rehearsal access. Provide: Venue confirms working window. Prepare and operate: Relevant production teams attend. Confirm: Named production lead coordinates readiness. Dependency or open question: Access time, content and presenter availability.

This is a simplified example of the information to record, not a ready-made allocation for your event. Replace the labels with the actual people or organisations and mark anything unassigned.

Record the agreed scope, not merely a person's name beside a broad department. “Sound supplier” does not explain whether that supplier provides a remote-call interface, recording feed or presenter microphone outside the main room.

An exclusion does not appoint the next owner

If staging is excluded from one supplier's quotation, it does not follow that the venue supplies it. If transport is excluded, it does not follow that another department has planned the delivery.

An exclusion identifies a boundary in that proposal. The requirement still needs a confirmed provider or an explicit decision that it is not applicable.

When comparing production quotations, check whether excluded work has an agreed home elsewhere. Check duplicated work too. Two teams supplying an item may be intentional, but it should not result from conflicting assumptions.

Give decisions an owner and a deadline

The person coordinating a requirement may not have authority to approve it. A proposed alternative might need artist confirmation; a programme change might need client approval; an access arrangement might need venue confirmation.

Identify who can make the relevant decision and how it reaches the people delivering the work. An unanswered approval request should remain visible as unresolved, not be converted into an assumed yes.

Connect decision deadlines to the production schedule. A content decision needed before rehearsal cannot remain open indefinitely just because the show starts later.

Reconfirm responsibilities when the event changes

A new performance, room, remote participant or revised timetable can introduce work that was not in the original scope.

Check the affected teams, approvals, working time and interfaces. Update the shared plan and circulate the change to those who need it. A revised programme is not evidence that every supplier has accepted the additional work.

At show time, keep the route for communicating changes clear. Afterwards, confirm the agreed equipment, venue and supplier handovers and any remaining actions rather than allowing responsibility to disappear when a team leaves.

Coordination is necessary; a separate role is not automatic

Every production needs sufficient cross-production coordination. A separate Production Manager is one way that responsibility may be fulfilled.

A straightforward event may already have capable leadership and a complete, explicit supplier scope. Another event may need dedicated coordination because several teams, systems and decisions must be brought together.

The test is whether the work and its interfaces are understood, assigned and communicated. Adding a title without resolving the gaps does not solve them.

Before asking who is in charge, ask what is still unassigned.