Disclosure processes optimised primarily for speed often trade short-term efficiency for long-term exposure.
Statutory time limits exert a powerful influence on disclosure practice. Deadlines are visible, measurable, and difficult to ignore. It is therefore unsurprising that speed has become a dominant metric in DSAR and FOI handling. However, when speed becomes the primary objective, it can distort decision-making in subtle but consequential ways.
Fast disclosure is not inherently problematic. The difficulty arises when processes are designed to prioritise throughput over record integrity. In such environments, decisions are made quickly but documented lightly, if at all. Reviewers focus on clearing queues rather than capturing reasoning, and informal shortcuts become normalised.
This approach often appears successful in the short term. Responses are issued on time, request volumes are managed, and immediate complaints may be avoided. The risks emerge later, when decisions are revisited.
Under scrutiny, the question is rarely whether a response was timely. It is whether it was reasoned. Organisations that have optimised purely for speed often find that they cannot easily explain how relevance was assessed, how exemptions were applied, or why particular material was withheld. The faster the original process, the harder it becomes to reconstruct it later.
There is also a human dimension to this problem. Reviewers operating under constant time pressure are less likely to apply criteria consistently across cases. Without structured prompts or recording mechanisms, judgement becomes variable. This variability may go unnoticed internally, but it becomes problematic when similar requests produce different outcomes.
Speed-focused metrics can also mask complexity. Not all disclosure decisions are equal. Some require careful balancing of competing rights, particularly where third-party data is involved. Treating all decisions as equivalent units of work encourages superficial handling of complex cases.
A more resilient approach treats timeliness as a constraint rather than a goal. It recognises that meeting deadlines is necessary, but not sufficient. Processes are designed to preserve reasoning alongside efficiency, ensuring that decisions remain intelligible beyond the moment of response.
Disclosure that is merely fast may satisfy immediate requirements. Disclosure that is both timely and well-reasoned is far more likely to withstand later challenge.