The ‘Volume-over-Value’ Problem: When Investigations Become Bigger Than They Need to Be

Factual investigations are meant to answer specific questions about specific events. When they are done well, they are contained, purposeful, and proportionate. When they are not, they can quickly grow into something much larger than intended — broader in scope, more intrusive in practice, and far more costly than necessary.

This is what we often see when investigations shift from a bespoke, targeted enquiry into what can best be described as a “volume-over-value” approach: evidence is gathered widely rather than carefully, and relevance is replaced with volume. The result is an investigation that loses focus and, ultimately, usefulness.

At its core, a factual investigation has one job: to establish what happened in relation to a particular injury or incident. It is not designed to mediate workplace relationships, audit organisational culture, resolve historical grievances, or collect information simply because it exists. When those objectives begin to creep in, the investigation stops being precise and starts becoming something else entirely.

One of the most common ways this happens is through quiet scope expansion. An investigation might begin with a clearly defined incident — a claimed injury occurring on a particular date, for example — but gradually extend into unrelated matters such as earlier disputes, general conduct concerns, or longstanding dissatisfaction with management. As this happens, the original legal and factual basis for the investigation becomes diluted. The key issues become harder to identify, findings become less precise, and decision-makers are left with a report that does not clearly support or refute liability.

Another frequent issue is the failure to clearly test causal links. Rather than focusing on the relationship between the event, the work being performed, and the injury claimed, investigators sometimes collect large volumes of material without identifying what actually matters. Relevant evidence becomes buried among peripheral information, and the report no longer answers the central question it was meant to address. This creates real difficulty for insurers and employers who must rely on the investigation to make defensible liability decisions. Claims take longer to resolve, costs increase, and the risk of challenge grows.

Over-investigation is also commonly seen in the number of witnesses interviewed. In some cases, everyone remotely connected to the workplace is spoken to, regardless of whether they witnessed the incident or can provide probative information. What should have been a contained process becomes a broad disruption to the workplace. Costs escalate, witnesses experience unnecessary stress and fatigue, and the investigation itself becomes a source of tension rather than clarity.

Compounding this is the way investigations are often described to participants. They are frequently characterised as “non-intrusive” in an effort to reassure workers and witnesses. In reality, any process that involves collecting evidence, testing accounts, and informing liability decisions is inherently intrusive. There is nothing improper about that — but there is a problem when the intrusiveness is greater than necessary, or when participants feel the true nature of the process has not been explained honestly. This is particularly significant in psychological injury claims, where the investigation process itself can have an impact if not handled carefully and proportionately.

What is often overlooked is that good investigations are not defined by how much they cover, but by how precisely they are conducted. A well-run factual investigation should be clearly scoped from the outset, with each line of enquiry directly tied to the factual issues that need to be established. Witnesses should be selected because they are relevant, not simply because they are available. Evidence should be gathered because it is probative, and the investigation should conclude once the necessary facts have been established.

When that discipline is lost, a targeted enquiry becomes a blunt instrument — larger, louder, and more damaging than it needs to be. Precision gives way to excess, and the investigation itself becomes part of the problem.

Ultimately, precision in investigations is not just good practice; it is good risk management. A focused, proportionate approach protects the integrity of the claim, the client’s resources, and the people involved in the process. That is what factual investigations are meant to achieve — and what they should always strive to be.