Transparency: When Is More Better?

What properties should a decision process have, to justify full transparency of all decision information? This text discusses these properties using a generic infrastructure capital allocation decision process is used as the case study.

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

Case Study

Assume the following: Decision governance in an organization is such that it implements the decision making process which involves five stages: reaction, explanation, search, decision, and action. Each stage is defined as follows:

• Reaction: The stage when the decision maker has observed something that leads them to believe that they need to take action. At this stage, the decision maker has not decided yet what the right action should be.
• Explanation: The stage during which the decision maker is building an explanation of what happened, why it happened, and why the decision maker believes they need to take action in response.
• Search: The stage when the decision maker is identifying and refining options, each involving different possible actions the decision maker may be able to take.
• Decision: The decision maker commits to an option.
• Action: The stage during which the decision maker is performing the actions described by the option they committed to.

Suppose an organization has a decision making process for allocating capital to infrastructure projects. Assume that this decision making process has the five stages mentioned above, namely reaction, explanation, search, decision, and action.

1. Transparency in the Reaction Stage

The reaction stage is defined by the recognition of a situation that demands attention. It may be triggered by environmental signals, performance anomalies, or stakeholder complaints. At this point, no action has been decided.

Required Properties to Justify Transparency:

1. Signal Traceability: For transparency to be defensible, the sources of information that prompted the reaction must be observable and verifiable. This implies structured logging of data inputs, environmental scans, or performance metrics that triggered the concern.
2. Low Strategic Sensitivity: The transparency of early signals is justifiable if disclosure does not expose the organization to competitive disadvantage. In infrastructure contexts, early-stage problem identification is often operational rather than strategic, favoring openness.
3. Inclusivity of Observation: If the organization enables bottom-up feedback mechanisms (e.g., incident reporting systems), transparency allows validation of whether these mechanisms function as intended.

Transparency in the reaction stage supports distributed vigilance and enables decentralized detection of risk, in line with Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety: the more complex the environment, the more distributed the sensing mechanisms must be.

2. Transparency in the Explanation Stage

The explanation stage involves constructing a narrative or model of what happened, why it matters, and whether intervention is needed.

Required Properties to Justify Transparency:

1. Causal Formalization: Transparency requires that explanations are not purely intuitive but are constructed using frameworks that articulate assumptions, causality, and inference (e.g., root cause analysis, Bayesian updating).
2. Epistemic Pluralism: When the decision-making process welcomes multiple explanatory perspectives—technical, financial, regulatory—then transparency enables their integration and scrutiny.
3. Provisional Reasoning: Explanations should be tagged as provisional, contingent on new evidence. Transparency is justifiable if the organization has mechanisms to manage epistemic uncertainty without undermining authority.

This stage benefits from transparency under the condition that it fosters cognitive diversity and reduces motivated reasoning. Transparency can help create shared situational awareness, a known antecedent to coordination quality in complex organizations.

3. Transparency in the Search Stage

The search stage identifies and refines potential options for action, each with different implications for cost, time, scope, and risk.

Required Properties to Justify Transparency:

1. Structured Option Evaluation: Transparency is justified if the process uses formal tools—such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), scenario planning, or cost-benefit models—to assess options consistently.
2. Access to Evaluation Criteria: All stakeholders must know how options are being judged. Transparency without clarity of evaluative standards risks superficial participation or procedural gaming.
3. Exploratory Openness: The search process should tolerate dissent and unconventional ideas. Transparency enhances this only if psychological safety is high, and rejection of options is depersonalized.

Transparency in the search stage facilitates legitimacy by showing that alternatives were not arbitrarily dismissed. Moreover, it supports better alignment with organizational values and strategic goals when evaluative criteria are disclosed.

4. Transparency in the Decision Stage

At this point, the decision maker commits to an option, allocating capital, authorizing execution, and assuming accountability.

Required Properties to Justify Transparency:

1. Commitment Rationalization: Decision transparency is justified if the rationale for selecting one option over others is formally recorded, with a clear audit trail of data, deliberations, and dissent.
2. Stakeholder Clarity: Transparency is beneficial if it clarifies expectations for affected units, thereby reducing coordination costs and execution uncertainty.
3. Protection of Dissent: The decision process should include anonymous or protected documentation of minority views. Transparency enhances trust only if it coexists with institutional safeguards for internal critics.

This stage has the highest stakes. Transparent decision-making affirms fairness, deters corruption, and enhances perceived procedural justice. In capital allocation, it also sets the baseline for ex-post evaluation and learning.

5. Transparency in the Action Stage

This is the implementation phase. The chosen option is translated into projects, contracts, or operational changes.

Required Properties to Justify Transparency:

1. Execution Milestone Tracking: Transparency is warranted if there is a system for monitoring performance against predefined milestones, budgets, and timelines.
2. Feedback Integration: Transparency adds value if data on execution outcomes is used for mid-course correction, not just post-hoc justification.
3. Outcome Attribution: Transparent action requires clarity on who is responsible for each component of execution. Diffused responsibility reduces accountability.

In infrastructure projects, the risk of cost overruns, scope creep, or execution delay is high. Transparency in the action stage supports adaptive governance and continuous accountability.

Properties Applicable to All Stages That Justify Full Transparency

1. Auditability of Process: Across all stages, transparency is justifiable if records (decisions, justifications, data, communications) are structured for ex-post auditing.
2. Modularity and Traceability: Each stage’s output should be modular and traceable to inputs and actors. This supports explanations of “who knew what and when.”
3. Decision Governance Maturity: Organizations with mature decision governance—documented roles, conflict resolution mechanisms, and feedback loops—are better positioned to justify transparency without destabilizing outcomes.
4. Stakeholder Competence: Transparency presumes that those accessing information are able to interpret it responsibly. Capacity-building and decision literacy are prerequisites for transparent processes to improve outcomes.

References

• Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall.
• Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard University Press.
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior (4th ed.). Free Press.
• van den Hove, S. (2006). Between consensus and compromise: Acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 10–17.