What are the best ways to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation process?

What potential evidence may exist within the organization and what are those sources of evidence. If the investigator believes that there will likely be evidence within communications and correspondence (email, text, etc), then it is critical to ensure that sources are not overlooked for lack of technical knowledge. Consider systems and repositories both within the organization as well as those personal communication channels, systems, and storage locations. The importance of the identification phase for evidence cannot be understated. If something is missed in this phase, it can jeopardize the entire investigation.

Remember that this is a fact finding mission and the investigator should not only look for evidence supporting the allegation, but also exonerating evidence. This will help ensure a balanced approach and demonstrate an unbiased investigation that will withstand scrutiny. Consider the allegations and the types of evidence that may support either conclusion. Collect and analyze evidence from each category. Most current investigations include evidence in the form of written communications and correspondence (email, text, etc). If the investigator is using tools such as keywords or concept searching, build the term list to focus on identifying fact patterns that may answer the who, what, when, where, why, and how.

When it comes to sanctions recommendations, the investigator should consider the type of conduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the history of sanctions at the organization for similar conduct. A good investigations and compliance program will maintain a matrix of historic misconduct and the level of sanctions levied on individuals or groups. Each set of circumstances will have nuances. It is important to document the details of those nuances that impact the final recommendation so that if the sanction is questioned in the future, it will be a simple process to walk through the thinking at the time and demonstrate the consistency in sanctions for similar conduct in other matters.

At escalation stage ensure the assigned investigator completes comprehensive due diligence to ensure the allegation is indeed valid before proceeding with a course of action. Always leave room for potential errors or misunderstanding as every allegation may not be a real issue. If an allegation has no merit acknowledge same with the parties involved and make an apology. Never resort to assumptions or formulating other issues that are outside the scope of the original investigation in an attempt to cover errors in an investigation. This can result in severe reputational damage and other costs to an organisation.

Active listening and avoiding assumptions will lead to an impartial investigation.Assumptions lead to biases. One should accept all possible views while investigating.