The “Wet open overheid” or Woo is a law that facilitates access to government information for Dutch citizens and states that “everyone has the right to access government information without having to show an interest in it, subject to the limitations provided for by this law.” This law is the Dutch embodiment of a Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Facilitating citizens with access to government information is an essential promotor of an open and democratic society. Furthermore, it allows citizens to hold their governments accountable for their actions and make informed political decisions. The proper execution of this right to government information is essential, however, it was found that processing the information requests directed to Ministries of the Dutch Government takes an average of 161 days, where the law states a maximum handling term of 42 days. This delay impedes the citizens’ access to government information and should be addressed. While previous research has been performed towards improving “Woo-request processing,” there is little known about the process itself, nor what the direct causes of delay are. Information management is suggested as a possible culprit. Yet, there is little known about its effects, which are likely to be noticeable in the information search process (ISP) that is part of Woo-request processing. Therefore, the objective of this research is to identify how the existing Woo-request ISP is executed at Ministries of the Dutch National Government and what influences it in order to define improvements for said process in relation to its facilitation of an open and transparent government. This research concludes that the Woo-request ISP is a complex process that is influenced by many factors. Whereas the ISP described by academic literature portrays multiple iterative steps, the Woo-request ISP hardly portrays any iterative steps in relation to an improved definition and understanding of the information problem. As a result, the requestor cannot learn from the search itself and the information found throughout it. Combined with a possible lack of prerequisite knowledge of the requestor, this means that requests are likely to remain broadly defined and vague due to a fear of missing out on information caused by the requestor’s distrust. Therefore, this research suggests that through increased informative interaction between the requestor and the handler, supported by search and content experts, specification of the requests should be facilitated, which is expected to improve the search process. This also builds a relationship of trust between the parties involved, which is expected to increase the chance of a requestor’s cooperation. Furthermore, the Woo-request ISP as it is does not guarantee completeness nor traceability of the search performed. Therefore it is suggested that the information locating phase makes use of a metadata-based centralized search tool that is operated by experienced and trained personnel who are able to access all information applicable to the Woo. Whilst the suggested improvements are likely to have a positive influence on the existing process; there are large hurdles to be overcome. It must be noted that some problems or dependencies might in fact never be overcome. For example, the realization of a centrally accessible archive might never see the day of light, as it conflicts with government tasks and values other than openness and transparency. Additionally, it must be noted that the existing “document definition” used by the Dutch government is incredibly broad. This broad definition encases that if the government is to adhere to its laws, almost all currently produced information must be searchable by Woo-request handlers. Especially in a government where a policy rarely stands on its own, it can be challenging to define the end of relevance to a request. Lastly, it must be noted that some requestors might never be pleased with the outcomes of their Woo-request.