Here’s a little story from the pub. It has nothing to do with policing…or does it?

I was waiting at the bar in a busy local pub recently when something happened that made me think about organizational trust and frontline staff empowerment. (Okay, I get bored easily, especially when I’m thirsty). A lady at the bar was waiting to order food whilst her adult disabled son sat a few feet behind her, alone at their table. He seemed somewhat distressed to be separated from his mother and kept calling across to her. She told him she wouldn’t be long but was clearly becoming uncomfortable, so as a waitress walked past she asked her politely if it was okay if her food order could be taken at the table, thereby allowing her to sit with her son.

The waitress appeared even more uncomfortable than the lady – her initial response was, “I’m really sorry but it’s company policy that food orders have to be taken at the bar”. The lady replied, “Ok, don’t worry about it then. Thanks anyway”. The waitress could have left it at that but she didn’t, as it must have dawned on her that whilst she had instinctively complied with policy, her response wasn’t helpful. She then voiced the opinion that she wanted to accommodate the lady’s request but would have to ask the manager first.

As luck would have it, the manager walked past at that moment and the waitress posed the question. The manager responded instantly, “Of course you can. No problem at all”. I could see the relief on the lady’s face, as well as that of the waitress, and they returned to the table where son and mother were reunited. The waitress began to take their food order and all was well. My mind then returned to beer until I started to think about what I had just witnessed.

Although it was contrary to usual procedure, no one else waiting to place food orders at the bar minded that the lady was allowed to order hers at her table. It was the clearly the right thing to do. The waitress knew it was the right thing to do. She wanted to help, but didn’t have the authority. The manager knew it was the right thing to do. She also wanted to help. It was obvious really.

So why not simply trust waiters and waitresses to make such decisions without having to refer them upwards, or seek permission before being able to help? Had the manager been unavailable at that moment, the situation could have been painfully drawn out whilst waiting for someone who could make this straightforward decision. Let’s face it; if a member of waiting staff made the wrong decision in similar circumstances, what harm could be done? What is the risk? Pretty much nothing, I reckon.

The lesson here is this – in most cases your staff will probably make the same decision as you would anyway. What’s more, it will probably be the right decision. Why not just let them do it?

There seems to be a commonly-held misconception that by separating functions within a system, the organisation will somehow achieve enhanced levels of efficiency. The argument goes along the lines of, “If we create specialist teams with defined remits, they will do a better job than mere front line dogsbodies”. In a policing context, this can result in new departments being created that operate within strict parameters, along with mandatory handovers once an offender is arrested (typically by a frontline officer). In systems terms, the concept of separating out functions and establishing teams that pick up handovers from others is known as ‘division of labour’. It results in arguments about what is in whose remit, how policy is interpreted, and so on. It also slows down the flow of the work, disempowers frontline workers, and results in sub-optimal output.

In some cases however, the existence of particular specialist departments is entirely necessary and appropriate. A good police example would be the Counter Terrorist Unit, which deals in such a unique line of work that it would be unfair and ridiculous to expect a shift bobby to manage a complicated investigation around someone arrested under anti-terrorism laws. Another example would be the Economic Crime Unit, which deals exclusively with complex and high value frauds. Despite the fact that these are separate units within the overall system, the presence of such departments is not incompatible with the theory of building an effective system.

Sometimes lower-level prisoner handovers are also unavoidable. For example, officers could make an arrest 20 minutes before the end of their shift that will require extensive evidence collation ahead of interview. It would not be practical for them to stay on duty for many hours to deal with the job themselves in these circumstances. Another common factor is where the suspect is too drunk to be interviewed for several hours. It would be unfair (and costly) to expect the arresting officer to wait around for the suspect to be fit to be dealt with after he or she would normally have gone off duty.

Theoretical arguments against division of labour must always be considered against the need to achieve the stated purpose of the system (e.g. to effectively prosecute terrorists or organised criminal gangs operating international multi-million pound fraud rackets). Any notion that such top-end specialist teams are somehow incongruous with systems thinking is predicated on a rigid ideology that ignores real life. Furthermore, any interpretation of systems thinking that suggests all the workers in a system must perform an identical role is a fallacy that translates into some ill-conceived philosophy akin to ‘Systems Communism’. It is also a sure-fire way of wrecking the system.

Anyway, back on track. Division of labour and handovers are always bad when they exist unnecessarily. For example, if the first person you speak to when you report a fault with your internet service could diagnose and fix it for you, this makes so much more sense than them working through a junior-school level diagnostic flowchart before passing you onto someone else in another department because the problem wasn’t contained in their chart and it blew their mind. If the expert is at the front end it prevents handovers and results in a nice short process, as well as a faster, more efficient service. As I pointed out in the pie shop story, any handover (whether necessary or totally avoidable) introduces an additional stage into the process and therefore slows it down. The skill is in knowing your system so that you can identify any handovers that are essential, then eliminate all the others.

Enough theory for now. I’m going to run through an example featuring a dysfunctional system that thrives on separate departments with narrow remits that all receive handovers from front line workers. The example will demonstrate how this structure actually works against the system, ignores its purpose, generates waste, decreases capacity, and results in poorer service delivery. Here goes…

I have a friend who is a frontline PC on a response team in another force. We’ll call him ‘Gary’ to protect his identity. Gary’s force has recently undergone a reorganisation (or you could argue, a redisorganisation). The force has reduced the number of frontline police officers on response teams, moving some of them to various newly-generated teams with specific remits. One main feature of the new structure is that response officers no longer deal with their own prisoners following an arrest, and are obliged to hand the job over to an ‘investigation team’. The laudable aim behind this idea is that response officers are therefore not tied up in the station dealing with prisoners, and by handing the prisoner over to the investigation team, this will increase visibility, as well as availability for calls from the public. Sounds like a good idea at first, doesn’t it?

The problem is that the person who came up with this brainwave did not understand systems. There are all sorts of problems with response officers handing over prisoners as a matter of course. Aside from the horrible effects on the flow of the work that we will look at shortly, this design removes ownership and responsibility from the arresting officer. There is also the argument that it will de-skill frontline response officers, as they will become less proficient at interviewing suspects. Furthermore, smaller response teams will be less capable of managing demand at peak times (particularly in a rural force, such as where Gary is based). In addition to this there are implications for officer safety, as back-up from colleagues may be several miles away. These factors alone make this change in organisational structure a good example of introducing a systemic change that appears to offer short-term benefits, but which guarantees long-term rot.

But wait, it gets worse!

The other day, Gary told me about a straightforward incident that was unnecessarily complicated by the dysfunctional system he is obliged to operate within. It drew more people in than it needed to. It wasted time, internally and externally. It kept him off the streets. It would be funny if it wasn’t so frustrating, or costly for the taxpayer.

Gary was called to deal with a shoplifter who had been detained by staff. He had stolen low-value items and upon police arrival, he readily admitted he was guilty. (This may have had something to do with the fact that he had been seen committing the offence by three members of staff, as well as being caught on CCTV). Nevertheless, this type of incident is usually about as straightforward a job that a police officer can get. The items were returned undamaged to the shop, and the shoplifter was arrested for theft.

A check on the Police National Computer (PNC) revealed that he had not been arrested before, and the shop manager did not particularly want to go to court for such a relatively minor offence. In theory at least, providing that he subsequently admitted the offence in a taped interview, the shoplifter would usually be considered eligible for a caution. In these circumstances, this would be a proportionate outcome that would be acceptable to the shop manager. It would also negate the requirement to obtain witness statements or seize the CCTV, and mean that Gary would be back on patrol within a couple of hours at the most.

Except for the system.

What happened next was that Gary drove the shoplifter to the custody station (which was 30 minutes away, being as they were in a rural force area), and after he was booked in (this also took around 30 minutes), the following conversation ensued:

Gary: “Sarge, this one’s straightforward. He’s making a full and frank admission, so I’ll crack on and interview him myself if that’s okay?”

Custody Sergeant: “No you won’t lad. You’re not allowed to deal with your own prisoners any more. You will have to put together a handover package and then hand the case over to the investigation team”.

So, Gary had to leave his prisoner in a cell, drive the 30 minutes back to the shop, explain to the shop manager and two staff members that he would have to take statements from them after all, and that he also needed them burn off a copy of the CCTV footage. Being a quick writer, Gary was able to complete all three statements in two hours. An extra bonus was that it only took 15 minutes to burn a copy of the CCTV footage onto disc*.

(*Note: I’ve used a bit of artistic licence here: ask any bobby and they will tell you it’s always, “Nah mate, only the manager can work the CCTV and she’s on holiday / nights / at our Outer Hebrides branch this week”. Or there’s no disc available. Or despite fiddling with it for hours no one can get the damn thing to work. Or once you get the disc back to the police station there’s no machine that recognises the format. Etc. Etc.)

Once armed with all this evidence, Gary drove the 30 minutes back to the police station, where he then commenced tackling the gargantuan bureaucracy of the infamous ‘handover package’. This varies from force-to-force, but as a minimum will require the arresting officer’s statement, statements from all witnesses, a narrative of the incident from start to finish, as well as printouts of all relevant documents relating to the case, including a copy of the incident log, crime report and associated papers, a copy of the officer’s pocket book entry, PNC print, exhibit details (i.e. CCTV disc), along with a printout from the detained property computer system once the exhibit has been booked in. Along with this, there is almost always a pro-forma that lists all the papers attached to the handover package, which also requires a supervisor’s signature.

Needless to say, compiling the handover package to this standard is not a quick task, although Gary managed to do it in just an hour and 15 minutes. He then took it to the investigation team supervisor, who had to sit down and check through it, before endorsing the papers that it had met the required standard for his team to take on. Despite the likelihood that the outcome in this case was probably going to be a caution (meaning that the statements, CCTV evidence, and other documentation would never be required), policy dictated that all these elements must be present before the investigation team would deal with the shoplifter.

At this point, Gary was able to go back out on patrol. This was six hours after the ‘straightforward’ arrest.

The investigation team supervisor then had to find and allocate one of his officers to deal with the case from that point onwards. Of course, this officer had absolutely no knowledge of the matter whatsoever, so he had to read all the handover papers, including the three witness statements and Gary’s arrest statement, as well as view the CCTV. This prepared him for the interview with the suspect, which commenced about an hour after Gary exited stage left. The interview and subsequent administration of the inevitable caution took just an hour, before the stopwatch on the whole process ended 8 hours after the arrest.

The end-to-end process for what happened is mapped below:

Custody Process Flowchart 1

By following this model the following consequences have been caused:

• Gary was off the streets for 6 hours.
• Three members of the public have had to provide statements that weren’t needed. (Their time is not free!)
• A whole host of unnecessary paperwork and preparatory activity was generated to meet the standard to pass the job across to the investigation team.
• More officers were drawn in to the process than was necessary. (Their time is not without cost either).
• The end-to-end time was unnecessarily extended.

Contrast this with what the process would have looked like had Gary been allowed to retain ownership of the case:

Custody Process Flowchart 2

The advantages are obvious:

• No handovers.
• Ownership retained throughout.
• More efficient end-to-end process.
• Gary is back on patrol within 2 hours.

Considering that Process 1 was intended to increase the time response officers spend on the street, I hope you share Gary’s sense of frustration that this poorly-design system actually achieves the opposite. It also ‘achieves’ the introduction of blockages in the cell block, as the suspect is in custody for 8 hours instead of 2, meaning their capacity to manage other prisoners is affected. It causes a backlog in the control room as officers like Gary are tied up with these sorts of incidents four times longer than they should be, meaning there are less officers (on an already reduced response team) left to deal with incoming incidents. This means that outstanding jobs stack up and the public receive a sub-optimal response. All because someone with good intentions interfered with a system without understanding it. Ironic isn’t it?

The argument is not against every handover or specialism, but against rigid organisational structures and inflexible policies that dictate that there will be handovers and division of labour regardless of circumstances or context.  

The lesson here is simple:

The more an organisation compartmentalises its functions, the more handovers are introduced. The more handovers that are introduced, the more waste is driven into the system, and the less efficient it becomes. As the system becomes less efficient, service delivery gets worse.

The solution is even simpler:

Remove unnecessary handovers.

I thank you.

(Note: ‘Gary’ was not paid for contributing his story, and no animals were harmed during the making of this blog).

I’m a systems thinker. Usually this is a welcome gift that helps me identify issues that adversely affect performance, and therefore implement simple solutions. Other times it is almost like some sort of weird curse, as I haven’t yet found the ‘off’ switch. It’s like wearing 3-D glasses (or ‘systems goggles’) all the time. The below example illustrates this. At first it might not seem that relevant to the policing environment, but believe me, it is.

During a short holiday recently I was lucky enough to find a traditional ‘Pie and Mash’ shop, where I ate the best pie and mash I have ever had in my life, hands down. These guys really know their business: simple menu, quality food, very fair prices, and marvellous surroundings. The only problem I noticed as I waited for my pie to arrive was that their system was all wrong.

Within minutes of opening, the relatively small establishment was packed, and hungry diners awaited their choice of about nine different sorts of home-made, freshly cooked pies. There were five members of staff on duty, including the lady who I assume was the owner. What struck me first was that she seemed to be doing nearly everything herself. She was taking the orders, going to the counter, then telling other members of staff which type of pie to fetch out of the oven. She would then take the lid off a huge pot of mash (and another of peas, if desired), and plate it up herself. (No matter how busy the place became, I didn’t see anyone else spoon the mash or peas onto customers’ plates). Once plated, sometimes she took the food to the table herself; other times she instructed one of the other staff members to do it. The impression I formed was that it was not so much a team effort, but a one-woman show, occasionally assisted by ad hoc helpers.

What began to happen because of this was that the system kept stalling, and customers were kept waiting unnecessarily. Other staff members seemed to be uncertain about their roles, and were apparently unable to take the initiative in respect of taking orders or even putting mashed potatoes onto the pie-laden plates waiting to go out. There were periods where they stood around apparently waiting for the go-ahead to do something. This meant that service was sub-optimised.

Now I know we are not talking about life-and-death here, just pies, but the principles behind making this very small system operate effectively apply equally to any system. The ideal  process in this case should look something like the following diagram:

Pie Flowchart (Ideal)

Nice and simple, as short as possible, and designed from the customer’s perspective. Perfect.

Unfortunately, what was actually occurring was this:

Pie Flowchart (Actual)

(The ‘D’-shaped stages represent delays; the grey ‘D’ also represents a handover).

Already it becomes apparent that there are additional unnecessary stages that cause delays. There is also a handover (or hand-off, whichever term you prefer), at the point where the owner tells one of the others to put a particular pie on a plate. Handovers, by definition of their existence, drive waste into the process. It doesn’t matter how ‘clean’ a handover is, if it’s there at all then the process is longer, the likelihood of errors increases, and the system is rendered less efficient. Now also consider that whilst the process pauses for the owner to carry out the critical action of putting mash onto a plate, the other staff members are not gainfully employed. All they can do is wait to see if the owner will deliver the food to the table herself, or if she will ask one of them to do it (another handover).

Whilst I was there, a couple of such handovers went wrong and people got the wrong pies. This was  not a major issue, but a smoother system would reduce the likelhood of this happening at all. The place had become too busy for the system to cope in its current state; indeed the existing design practically guarantees these sorts of hiccups will occur. In the meantime, new customers were coming in and waiting at the counter unattended as the owner was running round like a mad thing taking orders at tables. None of the other staff members tended to emerge from the back room unless summoned to carry out a particular task by the owner. (Greeting new customers did not appear to be one of these).

Then there’s the bottlenecks. The design of the current system meant that at many points, one person (the owner) was carrying out a task, whilst the other four staff members were disengaged. If for whatever reason, the owner had set up the system so that only she could carry out certain tasks (e.g. putting the mash on the plates), this meant that the whole process could only move through that stage at the speed of one person. If she was otherwise engaged at that time carrying out another function (e.g. taking payments from customers), then this had the doubly unfortunate effect of actually delaying the bottleneck! In the meantime there were four other staff members who probably would have been more than capable of carrying out one or more of these straightforward functions had they been permitted to do so. This would have kept the process flowing.

Now let’s just stop for a minute and consider what the purpose of the pie shop is, and what the owner would want to achieve. I presume it would be something like:

“Sell excellent food at a fair price and please the customer”. (Oh, and make a profit too).

There is no doubt that the first two points were achieved, but the current system actually increases the possibility that the latter two aims will be impeded. Here’s why:

If one were to consider the process applying critical path analysis it would highlight the frequent pauses and bottlenecks that prevent all five members of staff from being productive simultaneously, and which intermittently stop the process altogether. Too much emphasis is on one person owning tasks within the process (the owner), and whilst she is taking orders, she can’t be plating up mash etc. If the other staff members are not empowered to greet customers, take orders, or even put mashed potato onto plates then not only will this affect the pride they are able to take in their work, but they are being paid to stand around. This is not their fault. They did not appear to be lazy or unwilling, and the owner probably just wanted to make sure things were done properly, so she chose to do them herself. The fault lies with the system. And only management can act upon the system.

If the system contains avoidable pauses, bottlenecks, handovers and under-utilised staff, then this is a recipe for delays and therefore dissatisfied customers. It also means that the end-to-end time for a customer’s visit is unnecessarily extended, and this of course impacts on the venue’s overall capacity. (I was there when potential customers were turned away as there were no seats available). Also, considering I was the third customer to enter the restaurant after it opened, and all the pies were freshly baked and ready to serve (as well as the mash and peas), it took over twenty minutes for the food to land on my table. Others were waiting a similar amount of time for their food. A twenty minute delay per table adds up to a lot of missed opportunities when customers are being turned away all day. Think of the improved customer experience and increased profits that would flow from a more efficient system.

So what’s the solution? Easy! First of all, the pie shop owner should establish the capacity of the system. I wouldn’t expect they would have have carried out any analysis to find out how many customers per day they have, or measured end-to-end times for customers, for example. This would elicit useful information about the capacity of the venue throughout the day and assist in determining how many staff might be required. More importantly, a proper understanding of the process, stage by stage, would highlight blockages and inefficiencies. Only then can an improved system be designed against the business’s purpose (see above).

An improved system would take into account the best way that each staff member can contribute towards achieving the purpose as part of a team, and this could involve removing the limited responsibilities most of them seem to have under the current structure. Is there any reason why any of them cannot take an order, fetch the pie out of the oven, add the mash (and peas) then deliver it to the table? This solution represents the purest systemic design, where the process is owned throughout by one person, who is responsible for their own contribution throughout. It is the shortest possible version of the process (see the ideal process, above), and it also eliminates the need for handovers.

This version of the pie process could easily reduce the average waiting time from twenty minutes down to two or three minutes. It would result in increased capacity as there would be a faster turnover of customers throughout the day, as well as happier customers, thereby generating even more customers and more profit. Happy customers become repeat customers, and also introduce more happy customers through word of mouth. Simply serving a quality product at a fair price is not enough.

An alternative model could involve one person performing the traditional front-of-house role, with other staff members owning specific areas of responsibility, for example, receiving the order then plating it up, with another delivering the food to the table. This does carry some risks (from a systems purist’s perspective) as it involves handovers, but anything is better than the current model. At least individuals would have clear roles, and the impact on the flow of the work would be minimal as there are no bottlenecks where everyone is waiting for the owner to finish doing something so she can do the next thing. The current model is so restrictive that it is not much more productive than if the owner was the only person in the room doing everything herself. There is a lot of potential to be unlocked in the staff that would significantly increase productivity and capacity, but which is currently neglected.

By trusting staff to act in the interests of the system (and business) this would ensure that they are gainfully employed, but more importantly, remove the current examples of pauses, handovers and bottlenecks. What are the risks in letting one of the others put the mash on the plates: perhaps they might give the customer slightly too much or too little? Even so, the impact is negligible and extending this responsibility to others far outweighs the negative effects of the inbuilt systemic delays and bottlenecks inherent within the existing process.

If these systemic changes were made, I guarantee that the pie shop’s system would be exponentially more productive, with an increased customer base, happier customers, increased turnover and profit, but best of all, fulfilled staff members who can take pride in knowing that they contribute directly to the purpose as part of a real team. The owner would also feel as though she has so much more time as she would be taking less strain by trying to do everything herself. Let the system carry the burden!

Anyway, this story involves pies. What does this have to do with policing or wider systems considerations? Well, the lessons of this story have wider implications for effective systems no matter whether you operate in the private or public sector. There are some common themes and a basic set of principles which will guarantee a better system (and therefore improved performance, efficiency and service delivery), regardless of the setting:

•        Define a clear purpose.
•        Analyse and understand the existing system before you try and alter it.
•        Design your system against purpose.
•        Remove waste, handovers, pauses and bottlenecks.
•        Empower staff to work as a team.

If you want to be really clever you should also consider devising measures that track whether the purpose is achieved, and plot the data on an SPC chart (see my other blogs) to understand the capablity of the redesigned system. This will enable you to identify levers for further improvement.

I was going to draw a parallel with a police example, but I’ve gone on long enough now, and perhaps it makes sense for you to draw your own comparisons with systems you are familiar with.

A final note to the pie shop owner: if you read this and realise it’s about your shop, I would like to commend you on the fantastic quality of your pies. If you decide to implement any of the changes I have suggested, my optional ’consultancy fee’ is one of those lovely Steak and Stout pies I had the other day please…

A final note to the reader: Just in case you are still wondering if I have too much time on my hands, I’ve been considering alternative titles, for example:

“Who ate all the pies?”

“Whose pie is it anyway?”

“Implementing an effective pie delivery process from a systems perspective: An essay”.

See you next time.

A few things happened yesterday. Firstly I realised I hadn’t written a blog for a while. (This isn’t because I’ve run out of things to say, just because I’ve been busier than usual recently). The second thing was that I discovered my old Lego police station set, retrieved from my Mum’s loft following her house move. The police station has nothing to do with this blog, but I am so impressed with it that I feel obliged to post a picture here. Its discovery also prompted much merriment on Twitter, which made me smile.

The third thing was that whilst absent-mindedly flicking through last night’s television I came across a ‘reality’ programme about a major British company (which I won’t name for legal reasons). The scene featured an angry manager holding a performance meeting with a room full of his staff, pointing at charts and data comparing this month against last month, and shouting “Worse!”, Worse!”, “Worse!”, as he reviewed each category. The staff members sat silently; one or two squirmed.

The combination of witnessing this scene, along with the fact I haven’t posted anything here for a while was the catalyst for this blog.

Anyone who is familiar with my previous posts will be aware of my views on performance management and systems. I have railed against organisational waste, ranted about the perverse incentives and behaviours generated by numerical targets, and tried to explain a little bit about variation and the intelligent application of Statistical Process Control (SPC) charts. I’m going to try not to cover old ground, but just wanted to reflect on the particular folly of the manager’s approach that I witnessed last night.

To begin with, he was having a go at the wrong people. Many of you will know that Deming attributes about 94% of performance to the system. The workers operate within the constraints that the system imposes on them, and it is management’s responsibility to improve the system. Only management can work on the causes of failure; simply shouting at the workers or exhorting them to work harder will not change anything about the capabilities of the system. A further irony is that this particular manager had based his assumptions of poor performance on incomplete information, so may well have been haranguing his audience during times of outstanding performance.

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the management style observed, the point I’m making is really about the approach of comparing this month to last month (or to this time last year) – It’s meaningless. A binary comaprison between two numbers can never tell the whole picture. If managers could understand just this one point, it would prevent unnecessary berating of the workers, knee-jerk reactions, and other waste activity. It would also enrich organisational learning and foster an enhanced understanding of performance. What manager wouldn’t want that?

To illustrate this point, I would like you to put yourself in the position of the manager. You want to know about how your organisation is performing. This will enable you to make systemic adjustments, identify any genuine poor performance, and predict where performance is heading. I will present you with three charts to assist you. To keep it simple I’ve even taken out the control limits (see my other blog on SPC charts for more information about these). The data are unimportant – the charts could represent sales, crime rates, customer satisfaction ratings etc.

The first chart shows performance as compared to last month.:

Data Chart : This Month vs Last Month

Useful?

Well, no it isn’t really is it? It doesn’t tell you anything about performance over the last year, or provide information that may assist in predicting future performance. It doesn’t tell you anything about whether performance is improving, getting worse, or if the system is stable. And of course, last month’s data point is itself subject to variation, so why would anyone think it’s meaningful to use it as a comparison? If it feels like there is something missing, then there probably is, as in this case. Why would some managers therefore choose to rely on this method?

The good news is that when simplistic binary comparisons are presented in this format, the gaps become blindingly obvious. Even if you stop reading this now, you’ve still attained a more advanced level of understanding than many out there. Use it to your advantage!

Next chart then: this month compared to this time last year. Surely, a comparison against this time last year is much more meaningful? That would take seasonality into account and provide a long-term picture, wouldn’t it? Let’s see…

Data Chart : This Month vs This Time Last Year

What does this chart tell you? Not a lot. What’s happened during the intervening period? No one knows. Performance may have been on a steady decline, or this month’s figure may be abnormally high or low. The same applies to last year’s figure. Both are subject to natural variation. In the mind of our manager from the television programme, this binary comparison would represent a terrible decline in performance. Even the slight difference between the two amounts on the ‘This Month vs Last Month’ chart would be taken as a failure. But is it, and can this information be used to understand, predict or improve performance for the organisation? Of course not!

Finally, let’s look at a chart that includes all the data:

Data Chart (Complete)

At last – the full picture. The chart demonstrates that the system is stable. This time last year the data point was unusually high, meaning that something may have happened that affected performance. It certainly means that it is misleading to rely upon this point to make a comparison with other months. Furthermore, there is no credence in judging this month’s performance against last month’s (thereby interpreting the slight change as deterioration), as it is clear that long term levels are stable. If the management want to improve performance, then action must be taken on the system; otherwise it is highly likely that performance will be maintained at current levels well into the future. It would be impossible to predict this using either of the first two charts.

To summarise then…

‘This week/month/year’ vs ‘Last week/month/year’ comparisons are commonplace in both the public and private sectors, and many managers still rely on them to judge performance. They appear to offer the comfort of a simple and clear comparison that shows which direction performance is heading, but as I hope I have demonstrated, they are misleading and can only generate harmful reactions. Binary comparisons never tell the truth: the only possible interpretations are either ‘we are doing fine’, inviting complacency when the long term picture may indicate that urgent action is required on the system, or ‘things are getting worse’, (even when it isn’t) which risks unnecessary organisational responses to fix the ‘problem’.

When you compare the charts above, I hope you can see how foolish that manager was to berate his staff based on his company’s ‘this month vs last month’ performance data. If you are a manager, please try looking at the fuller picture of performance instead of ‘this week vs last week’, ‘this month vs last month’ or ‘compared to this time last year’. It will improve your organisation’s understanding of performance, and better still, actual performance.

There is often the assumption that all activity undertaken by an organisation is necessary, whether it be front-end public contact or back office support functions. Certain types of activity, processes and norms become embedded over time and are accepted as ‘what we do here’, and therefore go unchallenged. Even where something instinctively doesn’t quite seem to make sense, or its value to the end-user isn’t obvious, we often still do it. This quiet acceptance leads to stagnation and waste.

Eliminating waste is the key to building capacity and enhancing efficiency, and the good news is that it is really, really easy to identify and eradicate. All it takes is the will to do it.

In my experience, waste seems to fall into three categories (I may revise this to two categories in future, for the purposes of efficiency):

Waste Type 1. The things an organisation shouldn’t become involved with in the first place.

This concept is discussed in my blog “Why We Must Learn To Say No”, and in a policing context manifests itself in a desire (or perceived obligation) for us to take the lead (or sometimes even assume complete ownership) in matters that belong fairly and squarely within the ambit of other agencies. I argue that this is driven partly by the ever-expanding societal role of the police, partly by our ‘can do’ organisational disposition, but also because of deep-seated risk aversion.

It goes without saying that if we are taking on additional work that we have no expertise in or jurisdiction over, there is a real and ironic risk we may make the situation worse. In any case, once embroiled in such activity, the rule of not being able to be in two places at once applies. Organisational effectiveness also suffers, as the incident the police should be dealing with has no one free to deal with it.

The concept of saying ‘no’ also applies to addressing those individuals who make demands for service which are, to put it bluntly, totally unreasonable. I appreciate we are a public service but for the greater good of those who genuinely need the police we have to be prepared to politely decline the demands of the selfish and dysfunctional minority who put an unacceptable strain on our resources.

To therefore reduce the first type of waste, ‘just say no’.

Waste Type 2. The activity undertaken to put right what we didn’t do properly in the first place (‘rework’).

Being really honest about this, we, the police, sometimes excel at creating this type of waste activity for ourselves. We don’t always record or respond to incidents as well as we should; we sometimes take a long time to sort things out; we don’t always get back to callers with updates. Ironically, this is often because of constraints created by waste in the first place, but I’m not going to make excuses.

Every time we don’t get something right first time, this drives waste into the system and creates unnecessary work for someone further down the line. Work activity within a system can be described as a ‘flow’ and this flow is interrupted every time someone has to go back to an earlier stage to rectify a problem. This causes delays, mistakes and frustrations for all concerned. It could be compared to an electrical signal passing along a wire: the longer the wire and the worse its condition, the weaker the signal at the other end. Sometimes the signal becomes corrupted and never emerges from the other end. Efficiency, on the other hand is generated by short processes and inbuilt quality. 

In the simplest terms, if someone has to spend time fixing something that was broken when it was handed to them before they can proceed with it down the workflow, it slows the process down and builds in waste. Whilst they are reworking the original activity they are not doing something else more important. Rework also includes dealing with the exasperated member of the public who phones up asking who is dealing with their case, or trying to find out what the update is. Also termed ‘failure demand’, servicing these essentially avoidable queries ties up a huge amount of capacity which could be gainfully employed elsewhere, if only we had kept the caller updated or given them the correct information in the first place.

Unfortunately the organisational response to rectifying poor initial input into the system is often the introduction of a raft of inappropriate measures, standards and targets. These are enforced through audit and inspection regimes, which of course require time, effort and staff to implement and maintain. At first, the creation of such audit and inspection mechanisms seems wise, but why would an organisation choose to insert third-party quality control mechanisms somewhere mid-stream or even at the end of the process? It’s too late then! The best that can be achieved is that defective product is identified and sent back to the start for rework. What is wrong with building in quality from the beginning?

(Note: I use the term ‘product’ as loosely as possible – I am careful about the use of business terminology when discussing public services. We are not a business; neither are our ‘customers’ consumers).

In Simon Guilfoyle’s ideal process world, the same person would own a piece of work from start to finish. This eliminates the need for handovers, which by definition introduce a pause in the process and increase the risk of errors. It also shortens the overall process, and enhances personal responsibility, ownership and professional pride. This is ultimately the best outcome for the service user.

I accept, however, that particularly in policing this is not always possible. What is possible though, is to mitigate the emergence of waste by ensuring that each person in the chain takes responsibility for their own work, and maximises quality before it is passed on. Incomplete or defective work should not be forwarded otherwise it will either be sent back at some point in the future, or worse still, leaves the system in a condition that is unfit for purpose. If the latter occurs, a member of the public receives a sub-optimal service from the police, and this is not acceptable (especially as it is avoidable).

The lesson here therefore, is to strive to eliminate errors at every stage of the process and ensure that defective product does not sneak further down the flow. Everyone has responsibility for quality control, not just supervisors. Imagine the huge amounts of capacity that can be generated within the system if effort is focused on getting it right first time, every time. No rework. No need for retrospective audit and inspection regimes. Increased professionalism. Better service.

Waste Type 3. The activity within a system that does not provide value for the service user.

This third type of waste is often the most insidious, as it quietly grows around organisational structures, constricting innovation and reducing flow to a crawl. It becomes the foundation for internal empire-building, unnecessary bureaucracy and a plethora of baseless processes and reporting requirements. It stops the organisation growing, saps efficiency and prevents effective service delivery. It is absolutely parasitic.

In public services, we must never lose sight of the fact that the reason we exist is to serve the public. (The clue is in the name I suppose). I therefore argue that every single one of our activities and processes must be subject to constant rigorous scrutiny as to whether they contribute towards this aim. If the answer is ‘no’, then we have to scrap them. There is no other alternative.

One example of the type of waste that achieves nothing for the public is the obligatory meeting that seems to drag on for hours, where one eventually walks out of the door at the end uncertain about what, if anything, has been achieved. Even where a meeting or agenda item was necessary at some point in the past, there is the real risk that unless under constant review, these matters become standing items that are no longer relevant. This results in ossification, where issues of little or no currency become standing items and no one seems to know why, or is courageous enough to let go.

My position on meetings is threefold: 1. There must be a clear purpose to the meeting. 2. The number of attendees and length of the meeting must be proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. 3. There must be clear decisions and outcomes that everybody understands and acts upon when they leave the room. Anything less is an absolute waste of time, and as we know, time is money.

Another example of this third type of waste is the requirement to report back huge amounts of unnecessary information to the centre. By introducing processes that mandate the creation of plans and strategies for even the most straightforward aspects of daily business, this builds more waste into the system and slows things down. The situation is then exacerbated when operational staff are required to follow prescriptive one-size-fits-all tactics to address the issue the plan was generated to tackle. This type of approach ignores local context, nuances and expertise, and results in more waste. It also disempowers those who know best how to tackle the issues in their field – the workers.

The situation is further worsened by the requirement to report back what activity was subsequently undertaken, as this bears no benefit to the citizen whatsoever and serves only to populate internal task returns or data collection requirements. Unless a particular intervention was truly innovative or unique, this whole cycle becomes riddled with waste, and adds absolutely no value to the experience of the service user. Indeed, it actually impacts adversely on the ability of the organisation to deal effectively with relatively straightforward matters, as it limits the amount of time available to actually deal with the problem! The result is that effort is preoccupied with introverted recording activity and the public experience a sub-optimal service. Workers can either spend time doing the job, or writing about it; there are only still the same amount of hours in the day.

When the focus of the mandated activity is not actually based on any real evidence of a problem, or understanding of the statistical activity that provides a real insight into the situation (see my blogs on understanding systems and SPC charts), the demoralising fact is that not only does all this waste activity prevent us from providing the quality service we so desperately want to, but it was all for nothing, as there wasn’t really a problem in the first place. Even after the next ‘priority’ has supplanted the most recent issue, it is a sad fact that often no proper evaluation takes place, and the opportunity to learn and improve is therefore missed.

These examples are not limited to the policing environment, and of course there are many more examples of this third type of toxic organisational waste.  The common thread that runs through this third type of waste is that these types of activities quietly grow within organisations, pushing value activity to the extremities as they expand. This is why it is critical that the test of whether the activity benefits the service user is constantly applied, and that those processes that do not meet the threshold are removed.

I am not advocating a simplistic ’scorched earth’ policy for all meetings or planning functions. Naturally there are some internal processes that are necessary without having obvious or immediate tangible benefits to the service user (e.g. payroll department) but there still has to be a review of proportionality in respect of whether these functions are undertaken effectively. The overarching argument is that if a function or process can be removed without detriment to the organisation or public, then it wasn’t necessary in the first place.

So, the third path to reducing waste and creating capacity is through ongoing examination of existing organisational processes, ensuring that those deemed necessary are maintained proportionately, and those that aren’t necessary are confronted and eradicated.

I argue that this approach to identifying and removing these three types of waste is a superior alternative to the traditional practice of ‘salami slicing’. Simply cutting budgets or staff posts without examining the work is futile and actually increases costs. Doing more with less, or the same with less, is a redundant doctrine as it simply means that organisations continue to operate in the same wasteful manner as before, with systems and processess that are clogged with waste. It is highly optimistic to expect a reduced workforce to maintain or even increase productivity whilst being expected to shoulder the burden of the waste in the system that hasn’t gone away. The reality is that productivity will decrease as there are less people mopping the floor and still no one has thought about turning off the tap.

When scrutinising current systems and processes it is important to appreciate that if waste is evident there is no point in tinkering around the edges. A few slight tweaks to a system that is laden with waste activity will make no difference to productivity. If waste is entering the system then the source must be traced as far upstream as possible and shut down. It is not a question of doing what we have always done but slightly better – if waste is found it must be eliminated, and if the existence of the process itself is untenable then it must go. Be radical.

By following this approach to identifying and eliminating waste, organisations can create huge capacity overnight. This additional capacity was always there, but was being consumed by doing the wrong things. Its liberation will result in enhanced performance, better service delivery and reduced costs. This opportunity awaits now – it’s simple, and free.

A final thought: Consider how bad things get when all three types of waste become entangled and waste begets waste. There’s a lot of it about. Act now.

But let’s put all these terrible consequences to one side for a moment, and look at numerical targets from a different perspective…

Being an optimist, I don’t actually believe that those who advocate or impose targets are necessarily bad people. Command and control through targets has been the norm for years, and at first glance some targets may even seem appropriate. Politicians and public service managers install them in the hope of improving performance, increasing efficiency and accountability, reducing costs, and so on. Let’s face it – it would be a bold move for such a person to genuinely discard management through targets if it was all they had ever known and trusted in. It could be quite an uncomfortable Epiphany for some.

So, for the purposes of this experiment, let’s explore the possibility that it could be feasible to set a target that is appropriate within a public services setting, and which comes with a warranty never to cause any of the horrors described above. A target that can only do good. A target that is absolutely proper, and completely defensible against any statistical or scientific argument; the perfect target.

Right, how do we set it?

I suppose the first logical step is to choose an area that is considered to be important enough to measure. This makes sense to me (genuinely), as I believe that we need appropriate indicators which feed into a proportionate performance measurement system. After all, if we don’t measure anything, we don’t know how we are doing, but worse still, we will miss important changes in the data which act as a signal (see my blog ‘Stay Calm and Don’t Knee Jerk’ for more on this, and Statistical Process Control charts in general).

The other important ingredient in effective performance measurement and operational deployment is a set of clearly defined priorities. So, for the purposes of illustration, a sensible and measurable policing priority could be to strive to reduce crime. No one is going to argue that the police shouldn’t try to reduce crime or arrest criminals, after all. (I’m keeping it simple here for the sake of the next bit - I appreciate external factors such as social deprivation, substance abuse, economic drivers, and other determinants affect crime rates, and it would be arrogant to suggest that crime reduction is totally within the gift of the police to control).

So now we have a clearly defined and measurable objective against which to set a target and measure subsequent performance. Let’s give it a try using widely-adopted techniques.

Crime rate chart

This chart represents the crime rate over a period of twelve months (or it could be twelve weeks, twelve years etc – it doesn’t matter). The actual figures that would normally appear on the vertical axis aren’t important, but for this demonstration let’s assume that the mid-point (horizontal blue line) is 1,000 crimes. The variation in the data ranges from 850 crimes (points 4 and 9 on the horizontal axis) to 1,100 crimes (point 2 on the horizontal axis).

For what it’s worth, the chart displays a good degree of control, with limited variation, suggesting that the system is stable and setting a target won’t actually affect the data. But that shouldn’t stop us trying. Here are some common methods of setting targets:

Method 1 is the tried-and-tested “add or subtract a few percent from last year’s figure”.

Method 2 is called “let’s use last year’s figure as a benchmark”.

Method 3 is simply a variant of Methods 1 or 2, which is to choose any of the data points (or just pick a number out of the air) and designate that figure as the target.

In the example of the crime rate chart above, this would mean that the crime rate at point 12 could be interpreted completely differently depending how the target had been set:

1. If the target was to reduce crime by 5% compared to this time last year (point 1 on the chart), then it was right on target, coming in at 950 crimes (point 12).

2. If the target was set using point 2 on the chart (1,100 crimes) then we see a huge reduction of 150 crimes at point 12 (almost 14% reduction). Well done!

3. If the target was set using point 9 (850 crimes) then it’s bad luck for you, as crime at point 12 has gone up 11.8% compared to this point.

The fact is that as the systemic variation in this chart is already stable and within the limits (horizontal red lines), setting a target within these limits will have no effect. (Other than to cause the type of unpalatable consequences mentioned briefly at the beginning of the article, and I did say I wasn’t going to go there, sorry). The reason it will have no effect is because the normal variation will be unaffected, meaning sometimes the target will be met and sometimes it won’t.

If a target is set above the upper limit it will be unattainable, as it is outside of the capabilities of the system. If it is set below the lower limit, there is no incentive to maintain current output and there is a risk that performance will deteriorate to meet the target.

So, where (and how) can you scientifically set the target?

The problem with all of these approaches is that they are entirely arbitrary. Each of the data points is subject of normal variation, so to designate one of them as a target is exactly the same as saying ‘that figure is normal and should be aspired towards’. Why?

How can it be ‘normal’, immune from natural variation or external influences? Why is it ’normal’ compared to the week before, or six months previous? How can it be set in stone as the benchmark, or more bizarrely, be amended by a couple of percent in one direction or the other to generate a target? Where do these percentage adjustments come from? How are they calculated? Even if a comparison is made against a long-term average, guess what – about half of the time the figure will be above average, and about half of the time it will be below the average! Target-driven performance management operates in a binary world of either ‘everything is doing just great’, or ‘things are getting worse’. There is no other position. Reality is not like that.

Even if you want to try and set a numerical target for all the right reasons, it just doesn’t make sense. Listen out for hollow proclamations of success that begin with statements such as “…compared with this time last year…” or “…the target for ‘X’ has been exceeded in 95% of cases…” etc. (This latter example is even more extreme as it is a target on a target! 95% of what?) Credible? You decide.

Another major problem with attempting to set numerical targets is that (as Deming pointed out) the system itself is responsible for around 94% of performance. Setting a target does not affect the system, as the system does not understand targets. Simply exhorting the workers to work harder or to try and achieve an aspirational numerical goal does not work. Even if it did, this tactic could only ever affect 6% of performance. Why would an organisation put so much effort into an area of such minimal leverage, when there is that big 94% just waiting, begging to be improved so that it can fulfil its potential?

Furthermore, to base targets on the current output of the system is to admit defeat. It is like accepting that we can’t do any better; that the system must be at capacity. The fact is that the system is capable of a lot more but is clogged up with the wrong stuff.

The failure to understand that all public sector numerical targets are a) completely arbitrary and b) scientifically impossible to establish in the first place, is the first mistake of those who promote their application. You wouldn’t set a target for the amount of hours the sun shines in a day would you? Why not – what’s the difference?

The second mistake is to react to whether normal statistical variation meets these targets or not, as it is exactly the same as reacting to something that isn’t there. The worst case scenario is the emergence of those hideous consequences I said I wouldn’t talk about; the best case scenario is that you just waste your time and effort, cause valuable resources to be diverted from elsewhere, and have absolutely no impact on what you are trying to achieve.

As the greatest opportunity for performance improvement lies within the system, this is where effort should be focused. The first step is to reduce waste. Waste is the activity within a system that does not provide value to the service user, such as unnecessary internal reporting requirements, or time spent reworking what wasn’t done properly in the first place. If waste can be reduced (or ideally, eliminated), this generates capacity that results in a more effective system and improved service delivery. These improvements outstrip anything that even the most ambitious numerical target could aspire to reach.

I argue that the only goal worth striving for is 100%, all of the time. Surely this can be the only perfect target. Realistically, we are never going to eliminate all crime or catch 100% of car thieves for a variety of reasons, but that should not stop us aiming to reach far beyond the artificial constraints of the arbitrary numerical targets we are subject to. ‘Aim for the stars and you might hit the moon’, as they say. A numerical detection target of 10% is like aiming for the top of a bungalow.

Finally, aside from the rights and wrongs, whys and wherefores of numerical policing targets, if anyone out there can present a sound, statistically robust, scientifically rigorous theory for determining them in the first place, give me a shout. I contend that it is impossible.

“What three things would you change about policing if you had a magic wand?”

All valid questions. These and many others were posed during my Twitter Q&A session #AskInspG last night. I must admit I enjoyed it immensely, even though I got an error message on the screen as soon as I sent my first tweet. At times I could hear the hamsters inside the Vic 20 I was using groaning with the effort of keeping the server running, but despite some answers not appearing on the hashtag page, I think it went pretty well overall. (Oddly enough, some of these answers are visible in sequence today, and others that were there last night have disappeared. Wierd).

I think the power of these events is in exposing myself as a human being who happens to do a job that involves wearing a uniform. I had a laugh last night, and the feedback I have received suggests that the questioners out there did too. Using social media in this way is not much different to having a chat with someone on the street or in the pub, and that’s its strength. At the end of last night’s Q&A session, DCC Stuart Hyde posted “We need to remember it’s ‘social’ not ‘corporate’ media”, and I think that sums up my position.

Next time I will look into using a more stable interactive platform to prevent messages going astray, but all in all I thought it went okay. I covered some serious issues, some personal thoughts and there was a bit of light-hearted banter, all despite being limited to 140 characters per reply (that was hard). To those forces who may still be nervous about their officers using social media, my message would be ‘don’t be scared’ - the public trust some of us to drive fast cars and carry guns.

Bit of a shorter blog this time, and no rant about inappropriate or damaging performance management systems for a change.

By the way, I hate cheese.

Lots of others have done it with great success (e.g. @PCStanleyWMP) so I’m going to imitate the innovators and host my own Q&A session on Twitter, using the hash tag #AskInspG .

I’m hoping that those who live or work in my area of Wolverhampton will have questions they want to put to me, but the session is open to anyone. Just remember to include the hash tag #AskInspG in your tweet or it may get lost.

A few simple guidelines should help the session run smoothly:

1. Please keep questions relevant to policing, social media, blogs etc.

2. Don’t ask me about the time in 1983 when your uncle got a speeding ticket and the officer was rude.

That should cover it.

Warning: my honest and forthwright responses may be unsuitable for some viewers.

Only joking See you there!

*As an aside I love the phrase “I make no apologies for X…”- it sounds so authoritative, even when one should patently be about to apologise for something. (I also appreciate overindulgent use of the asterix).

Anyway…

Anyone remember the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ book series, out from about 1983 (showing my age now) where you had to make a decision based on a paragraph of information, then choose a page to turn to which determined your progress, or lack of? For example, “You hear water running in the tunnel to the left, and a growling noise coming from the tunnel to the right. The tunnel ahead is darker than the other two and emits a foul stench. If you decide to go left, turn to page 125; if you choose to go right, turn to page 46. If you continue forward, turn to page 231”.

If you choose to go to the right you might get chewed up by a monster. If you go left, the text on page 125 may politely inform you that you have just drowned horribly. Who knows what the other choice might result in?

Of course, if you didn’t fancy whichever unfortunate fate you inadvertently selected you could always revert to the page you were at originally and select an alternative option. (I eventually learnt to fold the corner of the page before making a decision of such magnitude, as usually in these books there was a right answer and you proceeded to the next challenge).

Sometimes in real life there is no right answer, and never a chance to go back.

Often at work I do something or make a decision in good faith, based on all the information known to me at the time, but go off duty before the situation is fully resolved and wonder what happened afterwards. Did that missing person turn up safe and sound? Did I do enough? Even if I did I do enough, did I do it quickly enough? What if I had done something differently? Did the knifeman I put in hospital in self-defence make a complaint, and if so was it taken seriously? What will happen next?

These are the questions that confront every front line police officer when he or she has to make a split second decision based on limited information, without the benefit of hindsight, and without the opportunity of ‘keeping the page’ to go back to and choose a different option. Most of the time everything turns out okay, but what about when it doesn’t?

Unfortunately, there is sometimes a convention within the police known colloquially as the ‘Nine O’Clock Jury’ or the ‘Shudda Squad’. (As in “They shudda done this, they shudda done that etc”). Unwarranted retrospective criticism from people who weren’t there at 3am being spat at or having bottles thrown at them is demoralising and damaging for those officers who do their best at the time under difficult circumstances.

It’s not just an internal problem either: sometimes the way in which the news media reports on events involving the police isn’t helpful. I suppose they have to sell papers but there seems to be a lot of unfair sensationalist criticism out there, especially in the very early stages of an incident where very few facts are known. Random man in the street tells the reporter, “We knew something like this would happen” and there you have it- conclusive proof of police failure. Phrases like “Serious questions are being asked today…” are a good cue for impending cop-bashing to look out for when watching the news.

Naturally the flip side of this is that there are plenty of examples of when we could have done better, or have genuinely let someone down. These occasions should be used as an opportunity to genuinely understand what happened and why, not just for some embarrassed senior officer to trot out the phrase, “We must learn the lessons”, or similar.

One of the unfortunate consequences of genuine or perceived police failings is what I consider to be the inevitable prescriptive and risk-averse reaction. The ‘this must never happen again’ mentality results in new policies, doctrine, manuals of guidance and of course mandatory training for officers, along with the additional bureaucracy that goes with it. Individuals can become targets for blame and officers worry that they may be next if they make a mistake. The problem with this is that it robs police officers of confidence in their own decision-making, and results in a clumsy and usually ineffective one-size-fits-all ‘solution’. Unfortunately, real life doesn’t work like that and these excessively standardised approaches result in inefficiency, wasted effort and organisational risk-aversion.

Anyway, back to the theme of the title. Let’s assume you are the Duty Inspector and the following jobs come in. What would you do? (No pressure, but the decision you make in a split second may well be scrutinised over several weeks or months, or deconstructed moment-by-moment in court). Or perhaps, everything turns out okay, no one notices and we all go home.

Try these:

1.      The control room receives a 999 call from a mobile phone number that cuts off without any speech being heard. When attempting to call the number back it is switched off. Do you:

a)      Arrange for an emergency subscriber check and triangulation of the phone signal to try and establish roughly what area the call has come from, then divert a significant proportion of your resources to scour the area looking for anyone who may be in distress?

b)      Await further calls to confirm if there is a problem?

Let’s assume you chose a) and the caller is located moments before some maniac was about to kill them. Gold star for you.

How about if it turns out the phone is a Pay-As-You-Go (meaning you can’t find out where or to whom it is registered), and it has been tracked to a one-square-mile radius in the middle of a packed residential area? What now? At the other end of the scale, how about if the caller is found and the 999 call turned out to be accidental? No big deal you might think. On the other hand, imagine if you go for option b) and the caller turns up dead – it’s “Hello IPCC inquiry, bye bye job”.

‘Epic Fail’, as they say.

So, the inference appears to be that option a) is a win / win for everyone. But is it? What happens if you always go for option a)?

Well, telecoms checks don’t come cheap and capacity for this type of technological analysis is finite. Deploying officers to conduct house-to-house enquiries, or scouring woodland looking for the owner of the phone means they can’t be dealing with something else, somewhere else. If half the shift are out speculatively looking for someone who might have just accidentally sat on their phone with their left check pressing down on the ‘9’ button (I did it once I’m ashamed to admit), then that’s great but there’s a price. It means that there’s no one free to deal with the house burglary, the stabbing, the old lady who has been robbed.

Of course option b) should never be a default position, but if a bit more information came to light such as there was a history of calls from the same number where the caller had been the victim of domestic violence, or there was someone shouting for help before the call cut off then in my view that warrants a different response.

This is why we have to make proportionate decisions based on the information available at the time to determine what we can realistically respond to, and how. When there are multiple calls for service we have no option but to prioritise, and inevitably this means it is impossible to either please all of the people all of the time, or provide a cast-iron guarantee that we will never make a mistake.

The alternative is a risk-averse non-decision-making culture where the safest option is always selected. This maximises protection for the organisation but constrains professional judgment and guarantees poorer service. As I have said before, we are in the business of managing risk, not avoiding it. However much society would like it, policing is not a risk-free business, especially as officers are often expected to make decisions based on developing situations in difficult circumstances and without the benefit of all information being available to them at the time the decision is required.

To always go for the ultra-safe option is the real ‘Epic Fail’.

Next ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ decision then …

2. Three incidents are reported at the same time, all of which deserve a police response. You only have one unit available. Do you choose:

a) ?

b) ? or

c) ?

Difficult, isn’t it? Welcome to my world.

What about this one then? Pretty much the most distressing job an officer can get.

3. A baby is found dead at home. How do you balance the following:

a)      The family may be murder suspects and you owe it to that child to make sure that he or she receives the justice they deserve?

b)      The family are totally innocent and you are intruding into the most devastating event that any parent could ever experience?

The consequences of getting it wrong either way are truly horrific.

These are the decisions we face. These are the decisions I face. These are the situations that society expects young frontline police officers to make life-changing decisions about in the heat of the moment. Sometimes we get it wrong. We are human.

Fast forward a few years to my early days in the police, and apart from the heavy responsibility of managing the tea fund, arithmetic was not a major feature of daily activity. The main exception was a thing called ‘performance measurement’, which I had heard had something to do with graphs and charts.

As a Police Constable I was more interested in catching criminals than with distractions such as performance measurement, as I felt it had little to do with my day-to-day work. My level of interest in such things was around the ‘zero’ mark (or slightly lower). During my time as a Sergeant I had to confront my statistics demons occasionally, but found the whole performance measurement scene about as exciting as waiting to see the dentist. As an Inspector there is no escape.

The silver lining to this inescapable cloud is that I have forced myself to look long and hard at performance management and this has helped me understand why I haven’t always felt comfortable with the way I have seen it implemented. I have seen (and been subject of) individual performance targets such as ‘to make three arrests per month’ etc and also witnessed sudden and apparently inexplicable shifts in centrally-determined priorities. None of this made any sense to me beforehand but now I understand why it is so wrong. I have also developed a genuine interest in understanding performance management and an appreciation of how effective systems operate.

Before I go off down that route, I want to reassure that I haven’t morphed into some sort of über-geek. Anyone who works with me will tell you that even now I am out there in the thick of things with the troops on a Friday night, and even occasionally catch criminals (I haven’t lost the knack of being in the wrong place at the wrong time). I am often first to volunteer for PSU duties such as football matches and major events, and I’m told I am a practical, common-sense sort of gaffer.

So where is this going and what has it got to do with those hours of boredom in double maths, Class 4 c, circa 1990?

Well I need you to stay with me guys because I’m going to introduce you to the high-octane world of Statistical Process Control (SPC) charts. (Also known as Process Behaviour Charts, or PBC). I appreciate there’s only so much excitement you can handle and I’m also aware that there’s some serious competition for stimulating internet content out there, but this might just explain something really important.

I found out about SPC charts a couple of years ago and it dawned on me that the reason why talk of performance measurement used to induce symptoms of pathological boredom / indifference is because so many police managers do it wrong.

How many times have you been shown a graph and been told that we have a burglary problem, or an ASB problem, or a vehicle crime problem? Pretty common huh? What about a week later, or a month later, or two months later? A pint says it’s something else that’s now the problem. Have any of you witnessed the panic caused when someone realises that crime is higher this month than it was last month? Or that detections are lower than at this time last year? It’s a shame really, because this is needless worry, as this type of comparison has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever, plus the figures are likely to stabilise naturally.

This phenomenon is known as the ‘pinball effect’ or ‘knee-jerking’, and has been experienced in police forces up and down the country. It results in resources and effort being pinged around from one priority to the other, in response to these apparent ‘problems’ that have been identified through performance data, charts and analytical endeavour. The real problem is that some managers simply do not understand how to interpret performance data or SPC charts, and are oblivious to the damage their actions cause. Let me explain:

Chart 1

This is an SPC chart. It probably looks familiar. The red lines at the top and bottom are the upper and lower control limits, and the blue line is the mid-point between these. There is a formula for calculating how these limits are set, but I won’t bore you with that here. All you need to know is that as long as the statistical activity is occurring within the upper and lower control limits, the system is stable.

Data varies naturally, so this week’s figure might be slightly lower than last week, or a bit higher than the week before that. This is normal. Unless a data point falls outside one of the limits (or in certain circumstances is part of a clear trend of several consecutive points heading towards one of them), then relax. This is normal statistical variation.

Taking this quick lesson into account, the only data point that needs looking at more deeply on Chart 1 is the one at Week 3, as it falls below the lower control limit. A data point that falls outside of either of the control limits is known as a ‘signal’. If, for example, Chart 1 plotted crime rates, a police manager would want to know what happened at Week 3. It may be that there was a policing operation in that area that reduced crime significantly, or perhaps it was -15 degrees with heavy snow.

If the chart was plotting detections, then again, there would probably be a reason for the drop at Week 3. Perhaps the force’s crime inputting system was down or some staff in the detections inputting department were absent. Whatever the reason was that caused the drop, it was righted within a week and there was no long term effect, so it’s not worth worrying about too much. The important thing is to recognise that there was a definite signal at Week 3, and by asking the right questions about what might have caused it, we may discover something about the system that could be improved. Clearly then, the other data points don’t need worrying about, or reacting to. If however, there had also been similar signals at Weeks 4, 5 and 6, then that indicates there’s a definite systemic problem that requires attention. It is unlikely that other methods of comparing data would be able to differentiate between normal statistical variation and signals, which is why SPC charts are such a useful tool in providing evidence that acts as the basis to look deeper where necessary.

Now for the next part of the lesson:

Chart 2

Let’s say the above chart relates to robbery rates. The statistical activity is definitely under control, and by looking at a series of data points rather than just comparing figures with ‘what happened last week’ or ‘compared to this time last year’, we can see that there has been a steady decline in the robbery rate. Unfortunately (and no word of a lie) I have been present when, following consistent long-term reductions, an isolated and marginal increase (as at Week 10) has resulted in panic that ‘robberies are going up!’

Of course one robbery is one too many, but the way to tackle robberies is through intelligence-led policing and robust offender management, not by knee-jerking to negligible variation on a controlled SPC chart. Furthermore, if additional analysis revealed that the robberies at Week 10 occurred in different locations, at different days and times, and with no similarity whatsoever, then it is foolish to react or redeploy resources purely because there were a couple more offences than the previous week.

This is because the data point at Week 10 is neither a signal, nor part of a series. By maintaining whatever policing activity appears to have been reducing robberies recently it is entirely likely that the robbery rate would continue to decline without additional intervention.

Naturally this also works in reverse – in the event that there were less robberies this week compared to last week (or this time last year), it would be ridiculous to rest on our organisational laurels on this basis. The reality may be that there has been a long-term increase in robberies, with only a recent apparent respite. It is therefore wrong to relax based on the recent ‘respite’, especially as it is likely to be normal statistical variation rather than a genuine respite, much less a signal. The advantage of SPC charts is that they provide police managers with the opportunity to hold their nerve and see which way things develop, rather than jumping in unnecessarily.

Right, enough of the maths lesson, and back to practical application. Suppose a policing area bases its resourcing, deployment and tasking decisions on a non-event such as at Week 10 above, it absolutely guarantees inefficiency and wasted effort, as the reaction is not based on any science or logic whatsoever. Worse still, it is entirely probable that the area Commander, Sector Inspector, or Beat Sergeant will be held to account, despite this being a non-signal event.

This will result in the inevitable demand for ‘plans’ to be produced detailing what action will be taken to deal with the perceived robbery problem. The plans and any ‘results’ will subsequently be reported back centrally. This takes time and effort and is of questionable value. Resources will be diverted to something that is not a problem (in systems terms), which of course means that officers have to stop doing something they were doing elsewhere. This other activity may well have been necessary to manage genuine concerns in other areas. Of course, this increases the risk that the other concerns become a genuine problem as they are no longer controlled, and this cycle repeats itself. (Introduce arbitrary numerical targets into this mix and it gets really messy, but I won’t go there for the purposes of this blog – read my targets article if this side of things interests you).

Performance management systems are an important tool for providing information that helps managers understand the system. It enables us to identify anomalies, ask questions, and seek ways of improving the system, thereby aiming to provide a better service to the public. The first step to effective performance management is to do it properly. This means intelligently intepreting what the data mean and never relying on comparisons with just one other data point.

If the information contained within SPC charts is understood and applied intelligently it can be a powerful antidote to the wasteful knee-jerk response of reacting to isolated data and normal statistical variation. This will prevent wasteful deployments and the creation of baseless priorities, and ensure that the right things are prioritised instead. It should also stop the bizarre situation where so many conflicting ‘priorities’ are mandated that everything becomes a priority, (or to put it another way, nothing becomes a priority) and it is impossible to see the wood for the trees.

Of course, SPC charts are not the answer to everything. Effective performance management relies on considering a range of information, backed up by sound operational understanding and a holistic systemic approach. Nevertheless, SPC charts have an important place in a proportionate and meaningful performance management system, as when the information they contain is interpreted properly this provides a solid basis for understanding the system and preventing the horrible consequences of knee-jerking.

I have never found myself in a situation where I needed to work out the volume of that traffic cone, but can definitely say that maths came in useful in later life in the form of SPC charts.

So to summarise, today’s lessons:

• Performance measurement, and SPC charts in particular, are useful tools if applied properly.
• Pay attention at school.