Scoping an independent workplace investigation

Begin with the decision and the questions

A useful brief explains the decision the organisation needs to make and the factual questions that will inform it. Describe the events or allegations requiring enquiry, the relevant period and any policies the commissioned work must address. Separate the reported concern from the conclusion being sought. An instruction should allow the investigator to examine competing explanations and identify where the available material cannot support a finding.

Choose the form of engagement

Factual support and a commissioned investigation have different responsibilities. A client-managed process may need one interview, a statement, a chronology or an evidence-gap review. A commissioned investigation may require findings against specified allegations or policy questions, where expressly agreed and within competence. State which arrangement is intended and who retains responsibility for the wider process. This also clarifies what the report is expected to deliver.

Establish authority and reporting arrangements

Confirm who is authorised to instruct, provide access to records, approve changes and receive the report. Potential conflicts should be considered before appointment, particularly where the concern involves a senior manager or director. Identify responsibility for response opportunities and any particular procedural requirements. These arrangements should be settled with the appropriate organisational or legal adviser as part of the instructions, rather than left for the investigator to infer.

Map the evidence before setting the timetable

List the records already available, likely witnesses and material gaps. Identify whether the enquiry relies on original documents, complete messages or selected extracts. Distinguish a requested deadline from a confirmed reporting date: witness availability, review and correction of statements, or additional source material may affect the sequence. The enquiry plan should connect each proposed interview or records request to a material question, so its purpose is clear.

Agree how the scope can change

New allegations, an additional witness or a significant documentary conflict can change the work required. Agree who can authorise further enquiries, what information will be provided about timing and cost, and how revised instructions will be recorded. The final report should explain the scope actually completed and any questions left outside it. Before commissioning, check that the brief identifies the questions, authority, reporting line, evidence requirements, deliverables and process for change.

Check whether the instruction can be assessed.

Before work begins, read the brief from the perspective of the person who will receive the report. Can they identify the allegations or questions addressed, the investigation role, the sources expected and the decisions reserved to them? If the requested output is a reasoned finding, the appointment should say so and identify the relevant mandate.

A concise final check is useful: questions, authority, reporting line, relevant policies, source requirements, participant arrangements, deliverables and approval of changes. Clear commissioning supports a reviewable process. It does not guarantee a particular outcome or replace the appropriate advice for the matter.

Further reading.