I consult with agencies that want to deploy mobile technology, i.e. their first computers, software to run plates (tags) and people, or maybe to write traffic tickets and/or crash reports. Once selected and installed, I often get involved in training the cops on how to use the new gear.
The unfortunate reality is that nearly every product which I could recommend or that I have trained clients in the use of trained has serious flaws. There are usually flaws in the product as it comes from the producer, and those flaws are only magnified by mistakes in the implementation process that comes from the city s IT folks, who have never spent a minute working in a patrol car.
This combination of screw-ups proves frustrating and are serious time-wasters, at the very least. At their worst, they cause cops to die.
How and why does this happen? The reasons are simple– almost too obvious. The folks making the gear rarely (if ever) talk to or seek the opinions of the cops who actually use it. Usually, someone with bars or stripes is calling the shots. Guys who haven t had their backsides in a car in ten or 20 years are making decisions and giving directions on a subject where their first-hand experience is limited or absent.
Administrators often have no clue about how important user-adjustable fonts might be. They are clueless to understand why font and background colors might be important. And, why should anyone care if the keyboard backlight is green, red, or if there even is one? A removable keyboard seems totally unnecessary to a digit-head who has never written a long report on a fixed keyboard unit, screaming in pain because his lower back is twisted.
The comparison is like asking one of today s cops about the importance of the height of a call box or evaluating a speed-loader for their revolver. Duh!
So, suppliers have gone off designing and creating products based on information gained from administrators, who have no clue. The result is predictable. And it s a mess.
I have recently worked as a trainer for a software company that claims to have their focus on officer safety and offer products that are designed by cops, for cops. It makes a good story. It was good enough story in fact, that I brought my experience and reputation and joined forces with them. The reality, however, proved to be quite different.
Officer safety was a goal worth pursuing only if it did not threaten the profits of the parent corporation. When I pointed out the risks of a new product to cop safety, I was quickly told that I needed to realign my loyalties. I worked for a software company, I was told. I was no longer a cop and should remember that.
I considered those words of wisdom (?) as I headed for the door.
Sad, but true: most technology producers give officer safety only enough attention to make the sale to a person who doesn t really know what s going on in a patrol car. I hope there are some exceptions, but they remain elusive, so far.
How Urgent Is It?
I know of at least one cop who has been killed on the job where a significant part of the blame goes to the technology in the car. The software was not designed to be used on a small, mobile computer screen. The installation and location of the computer hardware couldn t have been placed in worse locations. The cop was never trained on risk awareness and avoidance when using a mobile computer.
There are reports of cops who have been seriously injured in a crash by computer gear that became a missile.
Cops are all too often surprised by a citizen who approaches their patrol car undetected, and knocks on the window to get the cop s attention. The cop was busy writing a report or studying a screen on his computer.
Of course, I don t want to omit the cars where seeing through the gear on the dashboard is a visual obstacle course. There are radar units, cameras, video screens, and a host of other junk that block an officer s view of what lies ahead. My recollection says that 2007 was a record year for cop deaths, and a huge portion of those were vehicle related. I wonder why?
How urgent? It s at the top of the pile.
Our safety and our lives are being threatened. For example, there s a huge system is southeastern Michigan (CLEMIS) that has become a street cop s worst nightmare. System administrators show it off to the unknowing as a bright shiny star. The reality is that those who actually use it consider it a pile of cow dung.
To be sure, this is not personal. However, we find that in many cases, systems or programs have been prostituted so that they no longer make improvement for the patrol cop their primary focus. These projects become twisted so that their prime benefactor is now the clerks in records or someone at the courthouse. And the cops are told, Live with it.
Where s the Beef?
This is so simple, it s almost too obvious. Yet, I think that some administrators need it as a screen saver or a sign on the wall of their office. Every worthwhile technology project will do three things for the patrol officers:
- It will improve officer safety. (Re-read this one many, many times)
- It will improve officer efficiency.
- It will make clerical jobs easier for the street cops.
Read item #1 at least a hundred times. It is the most important the item on the list.
Any product you are considering should be able to demonstrate how it will perform all of the above. If it does not, or you are not certain, show 'em the door.
Bottom Line
In the academy, we were taught about the elevated risk level of sitting stationary on the street for any period of time. Move around. Take different routes. Never fill out your daily log in front of the address where you were called for service.
Keep moving. You are an easier target when you're stopped. Remember that.
Today, technology threatens this most basic concept of coppery.
Stay in your area. Write reports in your car. Don t come to the station.
It sounds good on paper. That is, until you re listening to Amazing Grace from the pipers at a funeral of a cop who obeyed that nonsensical order.
We are in the process of moving work from the station to the car, all in the name of efficiency that is enabled by new technology. This line of thinking ignores one critical concept: bad guys want to kill us just because of the clothes we are wearing.
If we are going to successfully migrate work to the car, the gear we use must be fine-tuned for the mobile environment. Today, little of it is. Cops must be trained, reminded, and retrained on the tactical changes that are required to address safety issues.
In order to meet this objective, I need feedback from cops. Tell me what s happening in your department. What is working? What is not? In my next article, I want to talk about mobile software that s used to run people and vehicles from the car.
Please let me know what you use. What aspects do you like? What makes it tough to use? You can respond below, using the Comments feature, and remain anonymous.
Stay staunch. Stay aware. Stay safe.
