In my last two blogs, I have reflected on how the Home Secretary’s policy announcements (a new National Centre of Policing, a new Police Performance Unit and a Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee) would affect the use of technology in policing. The Home Secretary has also said that “national arrangements on procurement will also generate savings to reinvest into frontline policing.” This got me thinking: how could a national approach to policing technology work in practice?
National frameworks. Are they the answer?
One way to create a more unified approach to policing technology is to work with service providers to establish a set of national frameworks with deliberate and specific entry requirements that benefit policing.
These frameworks would allow police forces nationwide to benefit from experienced, quality-assured, pre-approved providers or solutions that meet strict standards for interoperability, security, and performance.
The goal would be to create an inclusive yet selective process for identifying and accrediting technology providers that can meet the diverse needs of law enforcement agencies, both large and small. These frameworks would also drive a better commercial deal for policing, with suppliers benefiting from national exposure.
Why, I hear you ask, couldn’t we use existing frameworks, of which there are many? Well, that would offer a route to purchase solutions. But are those frameworks fit for the specific needs of policing? Not in my view. A national framework could be structured over three distinct tiers.
Level 1: Procured locally. Delivered locally
This level could be used to purchase smaller, medium-sized, and more bespoke tools, applications, and software. This would be similar to what we have seen in the redaction space and the recent call to suppliers for a Robotic Processing Automation Framework. National frameworks should not be exclusionary but instead offer opportunities for a wide range of providers to participate, provided they meet clearly defined requirements.
These requirements would serve as a safeguard to ensure that only systems that truly meet the standards required for effective policing are included. In this way, systems meeting the standards would need to:
- Integrate with core policing systems.
- Comply with national data standards.
- Meet baseline security standards.
- Be scalable.
- Align with the soon-to-be refreshed policing digital strategy.
Each force could use these frameworks and procure locally, knowing that the supplier’s technology meets certain standards. The frameworks are nationally available, which allows for good commercial deals.
Level 2: Procured nationally. Delivered locally
For some of the reasons I have outlined in my previous blogs, this is the level that policing has traditionally found to be the most challenging to execute.
National procurement could be reserved for larger core systems that deliver the backbone of policing operations, such as Records Management, CAD, ERP, and CRM systems. By focusing initially on these core systems, we can ensure that the most critical technologies are standardised and well-integrated. This would lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness across forces and, of course, drive better commercial deals for larger and more costly systems, enabling more money to be distributed to other areas of policing.
Could this level instigate closer links between the providers of core systems? It would certainly require a partnership approach and a shared responsibility to innovate.
Again, there are challenges, and it would require a significant shift in culture and attitude, but perhaps the tide is already turning in this direction.
Level 3 – Procured nationally. Delivered nationally
This level applies to large, nationally used systems, which are often built, managed, and supported centrally due to their nature and size. The supplier community and procurement support supplier selection via Crown Commercial Services frameworks. I don’t think any adjustments to the procurement routes need to be made in this case, but I have some thoughts on how we can better get things right when delivering them.
There are examples of where policing gets large national delivery programmes right. The National Enabling Programme and Single Online Home are a couple of examples. However, for every successful rollout, there are others with challenges, such as NLEDP, which only started to turn around after a change in senior leadership and direction a few years ago, and ESMCP.
I often wonder what policing does behind the scenes to learn from the successes of the National Enabling Programme. Is there a blueprint? More importantly, how can we avoid another ESMCP? Are we monitoring and understanding what not to do when embarking on something of this scale in the future?
Time for some implementation blueprints?
Stronger central guidance and ownership are needed, as is a solid governance structure. Creating implementation blueprints would, without question, require more upfront investment at the early discovery and analysis stages. However, this should ensure that money is not wasted later in the programme. I believe the work is often undervalued in the early stages of these programmes.
Work would need to be done to scope and define the structure of these levels. Policing would need support from the service providers to understand the model’s appearance and help to deliver it. At Level 1 and Level 2, it is important to support each force in making evidence-based decisions about purchasing the right technology from those frameworks based on each force’s needs, not what may feel or look like the new shiny solution on the block.
Let me know your thoughts. I am keen to hear feedback from the community. Are my thoughts too ambitious? I would also be keen to engage with those from the policing community to listen to your ideas on how service providers could support this shift.
If you have a question for Jon or the Triad team, please get in touch.
