When information is distributed instead of prioritised

Over the years, I have often reflected on how much effort organisations put into distributing information.
Emails are sent, memos are published, intranet pages are updated, and acknowledgements are requested. Usually with the intention of being transparent and clear.

It is easy to sympathise with that logic.
If everyone has access to the same information, nothing important should be missed.

And yet, it often is.

When something does not work as intended — when expectations are not met or decisions are made without the right context — the explanation is frequently the same: the information was available. It had been sent out. It was accessible.

That is rarely untrue.
But it is also rarely the full picture.

What gradually happens in organisations with a high volume of communication is that the system stops making distinctions. Critical information, guiding information and background information are handled in much the same way. The same channels. The same tone. Often the same expectation to read and acknowledge.

The prioritisation does not disappear — it changes level.

In practice, it is passed down to the recipient.

This is seldom a conscious decision. No one explicitly states that each individual is now responsible for determining what matters most. It simply becomes the default when no other mechanism is in place.

The problem is that this assumption rarely holds in complex operations. When workload is high, when decisions must be taken quickly, or when several demands compete for attention, the volume of information becomes an obstacle rather than a support.

Over time, information loses its signalling value. Messages that require attention begin to resemble routine updates. Routine updates turn into background noise. Not because people do not care, but because the system no longer helps them distinguish what is important in the moment.

In reviews and audits, this often appears indirectly. There is usually no obvious communication failure. No missing emails. No technical breakdowns. And yet, something has been overlooked.

At that point, the same reasoning tends to resurface: the information was available.

This is where it becomes necessary to pause. Availability is not the same as control. And distribution is not the same as prioritisation.

When organisations stop taking responsibility for prioritisation, compliance and risk management become dependent on individual judgement. That is not a reflection of poor professionalism. It is a consequence of how the system has been designed.

Organisations that rely on people to always filter information correctly may look orderly on paper. In practice, they are often fragile, particularly when operational pressure increases.

Once you start noticing this pattern, it appears in more places than expected. Not because information is lacking — but because there is too much of it, delivered without a clear hierarchy.

And from there, it becomes easier to understand why well-intentioned organisations sometimes struggle to maintain control, despite communicating constantly.

—
Henrik Anderberg
External Lead Auditor, Flight Operations