The value of technology in investigations lies in how it is applied. In his Q&A for the 2026 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: GIR guide, FRA Partner Gerben Schreurs shares his perspective on using technology to support investigative objectives, managing growing volumes of digital evidence, and the principles that guide effective investigations.
Gerben also discusses continuous controls testing, the impact of off-channel communications, and why curiosity, collaboration and diverse perspectives continue to play a role in successful investigative teams.
"Technology should always support the investigative objective rather than become the objective itself."
Read Gerben's full Lexology Index Q&A below.
- What motivated you to pursue a career in investigations?
Early in my career, I was, coincidentally, assigned to an investigative matter. The work immediately appealed to me, and I enjoyed the challenge of solving complex puzzles by uncovering multiple layers of facts, while applying creative technology solutions to make the process more efficient. Just as importantly, the teamwork and shared experience of working through demanding investigations created professional relationships that have lasted to this day and inspired me to remain in the field ever since.
- When you are first engaged on a complex investigation, what principles guide how you scope and structure the initial fact finding process?
The first priority is always to understand the desired outcome and overall strategy for the matter, and to ensure there is alignment among all key stakeholders. Once the objectives are clear, the focus shifts to defining the scope and establishing appropriate boundaries. The challenge is to collect sufficient evidence to meet the investigative objectives without gathering excessive data that ultimately adds little value. The complexity of this process depends largely on the maturity of the organisation and the legal or regulatory constraints governing the preservation and collection of different types of information.
- How do you balance the need for technical sophistication with the practicalities of cost, time and organisational appetite during an investigation?
Technology should always support the investigative objective rather than become the objective itself. While it can be tempting to believe that technology can solve every challenge, success comes from applying the right tools in the right way to produce meaningful results. If the purpose or value of a particular technology cannot be explained clearly and simply, it is often better not to use it.
- Many organisations are moving toward continuous controls testing. What opportunities and limitations do you see for investigations in this shift towards real time oversight?
This has been an ambition for many organisations for years and, in theory, should make investigations more efficient by identifying issues earlier. In practice, however, the quality of the underlying data is often insufficient, meaning significant issues can still go undetected. My perspective is admittedly shaped by the fact that we are typically engaged when controls have already failed or been circumvented, so we tend to see where continuous monitoring has fallen short rather than where it has succeeded.
- As the volume of digital evidence expands exponentially, how are you seeing organisations adapt their governance around data preservation and triage?
Compared to 25 years ago, the volume of available data has increased dramatically, but the amount of truly relevant evidence in any investigation has remained relatively consistent. As a result, identifying that evidence has become far more challenging. Well-prepared organisations generally have policies and processes in place to preserve data, but many still lack effective internal processes to quickly identify the information that matters most. Another growing challenge is the use of off-channel communications, which are often outside an organisation's control yet can contain critical evidence needed to reconstruct events.
- Given your background in both consulting and in house roles, how has this dual perspective shaped the way you diagnose organisational blind spots and anticipate challenges during complex investigations?
My in-house experience has given me a practical understanding of the constraints organisations face, including budget limitations, resource pressures, and the natural tendency to overestimate the effectiveness of existing processes. Having worked on both sides allows me to ask the right questions early, identify potential blind spots and account for operational realities when planning an investigation.
- As someone who has built and led global teams, what do you see as the essential qualities for professionals working in forensic analytics today?
The short and simple answer: curiosity! In practice, however, success depends on building diverse teams with complementary skills, backgrounds and perspectives, where people are willing to support one another beyond their defined roles. Experience and technical expertise are important, but they are not always what solves the most complex cases. Sometimes a simple question from a junior team member can unlock an entirely new line of inquiry. Creating an environment that encourages open dialogue, collaboration, and transparency is essential for both professional development and delivering the best outcomes for clients.
- You have enjoyed a very distinguished career so far. What would you like to achieve that you have not yet accomplished?
I simply look forward to working on more challenging investigations and continuing to deliver meaningful value for our clients. Just as importantly, I enjoy working alongside talented colleagues who are committed to achieving the best possible outcomes. Being part of a team with that shared dedication is what continues to motivate me.
