Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Submission Draft
BCH Public Contact Collaboration
Target Operating Model
Submission Draft
Contents
2
Contents Sections Slide Numbers
Addendum 3-4
Introduction – The Target Operating Model and opportunity saving for BCH Collaborated Public Contact 5-9
Key features of the TOM 10
Public Contact Target Operating Model 11
Descriptions of the capabilities and functions within the TOM layers 12-14
The Citizens and Customer Layer 15-16
The Services Layer 17-21
The Process Layer - Level 0 end to end 23
Level 1 Call Handling Process 25
Level 1 Dispatch Process 26
Level 1 Investigations Management Unit Process 27-28
THRIIVES – the decisioning model 29
The Information and Performance Management Layer 30-36
The Technology Layer 37-39
The Organisation Layer 40-46
The People Layer 47-50
The Physical Sites Layer 51-55
Appendices
1. Approach to demand modelling 56-79
2. Glossary of Terms 80-83
3. List of Detailed Design Workpackages 84-86
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
Addendum to the TOM Design
3
Submission Draft
Addendum to the Public Contact Collaboration
Design Introduction
The Target Operating Model (TOM) and its associated products listed in appendix 3, were developed based on a set of principles and
design assumptions approved by the Public Contact Programme Board and JCOB. The main design consideration includes their key
components of the design
1. Collaborated contact management
2. Dispatch (command and control)
3. Athena Investigations Management Unit
A decision made at JCOB in March 2015 agreed that Public Contact would provide a centralised function to manage the following within
the IMU
• The recording and linking of all crime and non-crime investigations reported by a Member of the Public
• The QA and linking of all crime and non-crime investigations reported to an Officer
• The data management (QA and linking) for all ongoing investigations
The scope above formed the main design parameters for the Public Contact TOM which includes the IMU. This scope was then fed into
a demand and costing exercise in order to produce a cost estimate to deliver this service.
Upon review of the estimated investment cost of £6m, JCOB made a decision on the 9th June to reduce cost. The decision was made
that all Officer QA / linking and ongoing investigations management would be managed by Local Policing. However, the IMU would
continue to manage the allocations for crime and non-crime investigations, as well as the outcomes for crimes.
Consequently, the TOM design and associate products will require an amendment to reflect this decision. As the management and
ownership of the process moves beyond the scope of Public Contact, the impact and implications of this decision have been assessed
by the Athena Design Team.
4
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
Introduction: The Target Operating
Model and opportunity saving for BCH
Collaborated Public Contact
5
Submission Draft
Opportunities for cost savings Currently, each of the Forces operate a separate Public Contact and Dispatch function delivering emergency and non-
emergency services to the Public. The Public Contact collaboration programme seeks to deliver a number of savings and
efficiency opportunities through the design of a single Target Operation Model (TOM) to deliver these services in the future.
These opportunities are, at a high level, set out below and form the key principles of the TOM design.
The following four areas present a comprehensive view of the opportunities for costs savings that should be considered
when designing the TOM.
Opportunities for Cost Reduction*
6
How can you reduce the
volume of contacts
coming into BCH?
Are there opportunities for
automating services
How can manual
processes be performed
quicker?
Is the cost of resource
performing the task
appropriate?
Reduced transaction
volumes received
Reduced transactions
requiring manual
intervention
Reduced handling times
Reduced cost of
resources
• Increase self-service and IVR
• Reduce number of incorrectly routed calls
• Reduce failure demand
• Improved case handling technology
• Use of automation of repetitive manual tasks (robotics)
• Use of consistent workflow
• LEAN / Six Sigma process re-engineering
• Matching skills to available resources
• Forecasting and resourcing
• Consolidate similar teams / spans of control
• Location strategy / Sourcing options
* Not all of these would be appropriate for BCH Police
Submission Draft
Opportunities for cost savings The following initiatives are the key cost savings drivers within the BCH collaborated Public Contact functions
7
Opportunity Area Description
Reduced transaction volumes
received or manage through a
lower cost to serve channel
1 Self Service and IVR: BCH collectively manage 1.59m calls per annum of which 50% are contacts which
need to be re-routed or are non police business. IVR and Self Service crime and non crime reporting will
provide a lower cost of service model by rerouted contacts to be dealt with appropriately. Opportunities
for the removal of non police service at the source are considered to be limited without significant
investment in campaigns to educate the public on services that are provided by the police. These
contacts will continue to arrive but will be managed more effectively by call handlers, through sign
posting.
Reduced transactions requiring
manual intervention
2 Self Service capability will shift reporting processes from first contact to the citizen. This will reduce the
number of contacts into First Contact, however manual intervention will still be required downstream of
the reporting process to verify information and manage crime and non-crime investigations. However, self
service will reduce the number of transactions upfront that will require manual intervention.
Reduced handling times
3 Self Service capability will shift processes from First Contact to the citizen. This will reduce crime and
non-crime handling times for initial recording and subsequent updates.
4 Standardised call handling processes, using a single decision framework will support call handlers to
make quick yet effective decisions on best action to manage emergency and non-emergency contact,
herby providing a consistent handle time.
5 This decisioning capability will be underpinned by a single Contact Management system (CRM) and
knowledge base, reducing the number of systems and sources of information an operator will need to
access, reducing handle time and delivering a more efficient process
Reduced cost of resources
6 The integration of 3 Force Control Rooms will deliver FTE savings, however as First Contact and
Dispatch are the front line of Citizen contact, the scale of savings will not be as large when balanced with
stringent service levels and risk management obligations. There will be some benefit through better
demand led forecasting to establish the required FTE, largely delivered by reducing the inefficiencies
associated with forecasting for separate contact centres
7 Design more effective management structures, removing expensive management layers and improving
supervisory span of controls to providing better grip of the risk in an environment of this scale.
8 While non core support functions have also been reduced to drive cost savings, Resource Management
and Training functions are critical to support implementation, stabilisation and the ongoing needs of the
model. These roles have also been reduced but to a degree to retain services
Submission Draft
The Target Operating Model (TOM) approach The development of the future operating model will be guided by the Target Operating Model Framework. The TOM will drive considerations in
the key 9 areas below that must be considered when designing the future way of working
8
8. People
Skills and capabilities
2. Channels
Contact volumes and costs
3. Services
Emergency and non-
emergency contact
4. Processes
Contact, Control and Dispatch
5. Information
Performance Management,
reporting, insight6. Technology
Technology enablers
7. Organisation
Management & governance
9. Physical Sites
Contact. Control and Dispatch
sites
1. Citizen and Customer
Demand for service
• What customer and incident information will need to be gathered to support an effective
joined up services model?
• What performance framework and information will joint Public Contact services need?
• How will the future contact model operate across different service providers?
• What does the future response model look like and how will it link to Control & Dispatch?
• How do Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire best organise themselves to
support the new model?
• What are the optimal FTE requirements for each function?
• What is the optimal span of control (supervisory ratios) to support a change of this scale
• What capabilities will be required to support a joint model?
• How many roles will be required and where?
• What training for knowledge/skills is required?
• Are there any functionality gaps in current technology that must be addressed to meet the
requirements of a joint model for Public Contact?
• What new technology is required to implement the model and what is the cost/return on
investment?
• What is the target citizen experience across the joint public contact services ?
• How will we provide a joined up service for three police services?
• What channels shift do we want to encourage and how?
• What types of demand for services are the three forces facing?
• Are there other opportunities to manage non critical demands through other channels?
• What information and services will be offered to citizens through a joined up model?
• Will service channel depend on the nature of incidents?
• What services will be provided and which will be delivered by partners?
• How will Athena services
• What opportunities exist across the estates landscape to co-locate teams ?
• What advantages can be gained by locating teams together?
• What savings can be made form the sale of estate?
Submission Draft
The Target Operating Model (TOM) approach
The purpose of the TOM is distinct from the business case and from
detailed design. The TOM:
1. Sets out the blueprint for the future state of collaborated BCH Public Contact
operations
2. Establishes the key capabilities and functions within the future model –
therefore focuses on what the future model will deliver and not how this will be
delivered
3. As the blueprint, provides the key steer for the next level of detailed process
and organisation design that will define how and who will deliver the capabilities
articulated within the TOM
The proposed TOM for Public Contact Collaboration for BCH is described
throughout this document and considers the end to end capability required to
manage demand for services from the Public, Partners and Internal customers.
9
Submission Draft
Local Policing
Reduce the number of unnecessary deployments and allocations
1. The TOM is based on effective decisioning and early resolution of incidents and
investigations and therefore only deploys or allocates when necessary
Key features of the TOM
To effectively respond to emergency and non-emergency contact, applying consistent decisioning processes, and increase
early resolution managed within Public Contact thereby avoiding unnecessary deployments and delivering downstream
operational benefits
Manage contact
Emergency
Demand Non - Emergency Demand
First Point of Contact
Resolution and Sign-
posting
Emergency
Demand
Non- crime Crime Investigation
Investigations Management
Desk Based Enquiries
Further
investigation /
action required
Cri
me
No
n-
cri
me
THRIIVES
Contact Management
Focus on the citizen experience
1. Early interventions by contact operators
provides assurance and an improved citizen
experience with fewer handoffs
2. Operators control the contact process to
deliver operational efficiencies
3. Standardised operating procedures and
decision models to improve process handle
times and outcome consistency
4. Focus on first point of contact (FPOC)
resolution based on clear policies around
police and non-police business
Investigations Management and Resolution
1. Dedicated function focused on Athena investigations as
well as incident resolution
2. Provides robust upfront review and assessment of
incidents and investigations
3. Aims to effectively resolve cases and minimise the need
for the deployment of downstream resource
Managing Demand within the TOMKey features of the TOM
10
Local Policing
1. Will be empowered to manage the linking for officer recorded
investigation and updates for ongoing investigations
Submission Draft
Public Contact Target Operating Model (TOM)M
an
age
Con
tact
Ma
na
ge
Pro
ce
ss
Su
pp
ort
Fu
nctio
ns
Non-Emergency and Emergency servicesServices
Channels
Decisioning
Telephony (IVR)
Online self service
Webchat
T H R I I V E S
T H R I I V E S
outcome Resolve/
Signpost
Athena
Investigation Appointment Prompt Immediate
No attendance Emergency Attendance
Investigation
Management
Team
Dispatch
Assess
investigation
Record
investigation
Resolve | or
Allocate for
further action
Desk based
enquiry
Incident review
Dispatch
Control
Close
Resolution and Investigations
Teams
Manage process
Resolution or allocation
Performance Management (Management Information) / Resource Planning
Training/ Knowledge Management and Coaching
Forensic Deployment
Digital Channel Management
Admin
Emergency Text Message
Manage
Appointment
Review
Appointment
Update
appointment
Cancel
Appointment
Investigation
Support
Athena IMU Impact
Investigation / Non-Emergency Attendance
Support Public
Contact
Intel Research
Investigations Management Unit (IMU)
Crime
Incident
11
Email / Post
Scheduled
Resolve
Incident
Resolution
Management
Team
Assess incident
Record incident
Resolve | or
Allocate for
further action
Investigate
incident
Athena Investigations Support: Allocations and Outcomes Management
Local Policing manage linking for initial investigation report
Local Policing manage linking for all ongoing investigations
Local Policing Scope
Submission Draft
Functions and capabilities with the TOM
Functional Area Capability / Op model layer Functionality
Manage Contact
Services: defines the key services that will be
provided by Public Contact
1. Respond to and manage demand for emergency and non
emergency services
2. Provide signposting, advice and updates to citizens and internal
customers
Customers: the initiators and recipients of services
provided by Public Contact
1. Citizens (individuals and businesses)
2. Partners (other Blue Light services and Local Government
partners)
3. Internal: other functions/ teams within the Force
Channels: the mechanism through which we will
receive request for service and provide updates
1. Telephony (reporting/ updates / information)
2. Webchat (information / reporting)
3. Online self service (reporting / updates /information)
4. Email / post ( information / reporting)
5. Emergency SMS
Decisioning: the assessment model that underpins
the initial review and subsequent decision regarding
the most appropriate response to a demand for
service
1. THRIIVES is used to support decision making and considers the
Threat, Harm, Risk, Investigation, Intelligence Vulnerability,
Engagement and Specific Need elements of the specific situation
at the time of contact / report.
2. Decision outcome: the outcome of the THRIIVES process will
determine the next action applied to manage all requests for
service
THRIIVES Outcome: when the decision model is
applied, a combination of factors will determine the
most appropriate way to manage the process for a
request for service. The Public Contact Model has 4
high level outcomes.
1. First Point of Contact Resolution / Signposting – no risk contact
that requires no further action by BCH Police and may relate to
non-Police business
2. Investigation / resolution required – this relates to Athena
investigations which need to be reported, but where initial
attendance is not required. It also relates to STORM incidents that
are deemed suitable for further desk-based resolution.
3. Appointments – where attendance is required and can be
arranged for a specific time
4. Emergency attendance – where THRIIVES indicates an immediate
or prompt attendance is required and an appointment is not
appropriate
12
Submission Draft
Functions and capabilities with the TOM
Functional Area Capability / Op model layer Functionality
Manage Process Resolution and Investigation: capabilities
required to investigate, resolve or allocate an
investigation or incident. Resolution will focus on
trying to resolve non-emergency incidents to
reduce downstream demand on local policing
resources
1. Dispatch (Command & Control) – will focus on the allocation and
management of emergency incidents.
2. Resolution and Investigation – will manage the reporting,
investigation and resolution of Athena investigations and incidents
3. Appointment management – provides support to update and
cancel appointments when required
Manage Process: sets out the high level steps to
deliver the required service. The process may
result in a resolution with no further action or for
allocation for further investigation.
1. Dispatch: ability to review the incident, dispatch local police
resources, control the incident and provide updates to attending
teams. The Dispatch team will also manage the slow time
requests for Forensic Deployments from a dedicated desk, via a
multi-skilled agent
2. Resolution / Investigation: the high level process is standardised
as the following common set of activities are completed(the detail
may differ depending on the service type): assess, record,
investigate, resolve, allocate
Resolution or allocation Sets out the outcome of
the process management discussed above
1. As a result of the management of incidents and/ or investigations,
a number of actions may be taken. Where possible, we will
resolve without deployment, realising downstream benefits (e.g.
saving officer attendance time).
2. If a SOCO is required as part of an investigation, this will be
requested through the Forensic Deployment resource in Dispatch
3. Where there are proportionate further lines of enquiry, the DBE
team will complete a high level enquiry to determine if there and
will also allocate investigations as appropriate
4. The resolution of STORM Incidents will follow a similar process to
DBE -. Operators in the DBE team will access STORM records,
where a decision is made by the call handler that a phone based
resolution is possible
5. Where further investigation is not appropriate, or there is a specific
need according to THRIIVES, the investigation or incident will be
allocated to local policing
13
Submission Draft
Functions and capabilities with the TOM
Functional Area Capability / Op model layer Functionality
Support Functions Support Public Contact: describes the set of
capabilities needed to directly or indirectly enable
the delivery of the Public Contact Model. This
includes wider operational support and process
related support.
1. Athena Investigation Support:
• Will manage the allocations process for officer-reported crime
and non-crime investigations, where the attending officer
requires an allocation to another Unit.
• Will manage outcomes review and finalisation for all crimes.
The current assumption is that the IMU will manage outcomes
1 to 18. Detailed design may result in a shorter list of
outcomes being managed by the IMU
2. Resource Management: is delivered through the ability to plan,
schedule and manage the resources required to deliver the TOM.
3. Performance Management: is the data and reporting processes
needed to monitor and improve the performance of the TOM
4. Training (Knowledge Management) / Coaching: provides the skills
investment and knowledge to deliver the expected service quality
within the TOM. Knowledge management is an especially key
capability to provide users with the right information to deliver.
5. Digital Channel Management: provides oversight of the digital
channels (online / webchat ) performance and roadmap for future
developments. This management will be provided by the
Customer Services Manager; one of the four managers
overseeing the Public Contact operations.
6. Admin: The Admin function has been designed to incorporate the
key responsibilities of administrative posts across BCH Public
Contact. This function will not include PA support, which is
managed by a central pool. There is an ambition to phase out
dedicated support roles and absorb admin tasks into the
operational layer, driving frontline savings. The impact on role
profiles and processes will be reviewed during the implementation
process.
14
Note: all linking and QA for officer-reported investigations will be managed by Local Policing.
The recording and linking of further updates to ongoing investigations will also be managed by Local Policing.
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The Citizens and Customer Layer
15
Submission Draft
Citizens and Customers
Key groups serviced by the Target Operating Model
16
Citizens
External Customers Internal Customers
Non Public Contact
Functions and Team within
BCH
Individual BusinessOperational
Functions
Support
Functions
Partners
Blue
Light
Local
Govern.
Officers &
Police staff
Bedfordshire Police & Crime Plan: “better information will be provided to victims on first contact and they will be kept up to date with progress” *
Cambridgeshire Police & Crime Plan: “the public must be able to contact us in ways that are modern and convenient to them. We will keep in
touch with people in ways that suit them, without forgetting that as victims or witnesses of crime everyone deserves to be treated with sensitivity,
integrity and respect.” *
Hertfordshire Police & Crime Plan: “a new approach to customer care. I want to put victims of crime in the driving seat and enable them to
decide how much support they need, and how they want the Constabulary to keep in touch.” *
All customers currently serviced across BCH will be serviced by the future TOM
The TOM is predicated on a design that does not prioritise in terms of citizens or customers from whom it solicits contact
The citizen focus is in line with the priorities set across the BCH Crime Plans
Repeat / bulk users
Citizen and Customer focused Target Operating Model
Investigations and incident recording services
Contact management services
1*) Excerpts from Commissioners’ Police and Crime Plans Outline Business Case - Public Contact, Full Draft, v043, Strategic Case, p.19
Public Contact Functions
and Team within BCH
Agencies
Investigations data management services
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The Services Layer
17
Submission Draft
Services provided to external customers Analysis of current services delivered across BCH has been used to develop the catalogue of services provided to all Public Contact
customers. The services focus on: Contact Management, Incident and Investigation recording and Data management services. Processes
have been designed to eliminate servicing where this is not a core part of the Public Contact offering. Services have been retained, improved
and expanded. The provision of all services is driven by a THRIIVES assessment. A summary of services provided to Citizens is outlined
below:
Group Key Service Retained Improved New Future State
Citiz
en
s
Emergency
Dispatch
• Service provides immediate and critical attendance
• Delivery of this service is driven by THRIIVES assessment, focused on Threat Harm
Risk of the situation
Non-Emergency
Investigation
Recording
• Service allows crimes and relevant non-crimes to be recorded and managed on Athena
• Service will be provided to allow selected crimes to be recorded online
• Where crimes are recorded via telephony, citizens will have access to agents with
dedicated recording skills
Non-Emergency
appointments
management
• Service has been re-designed to offer a greater range of appointment types to suit
citizens and the incident or investigation type
• Appointments can be booked through digital and telephony channels
Non-Emergency
Incident Recording
& Resolution
• Service has been re-designed to offer a range of methods of incident recording,
including through digital channels
• Service to resolve incidents is enhanced by a dedicated Incident Resolution Team
Non-Emergency
Investigations &
Incident data
management
• The Service of updating and managing investigations, will be facilitated by a dedicated
team and enabled by Athena as the key technology
• The service will be further enabled by updated technology, including ‘Track my Crime’
• The service will ensure that all data held is captured and managed in line with
compliance, system and recording requirements
Non-Emergency
Signposting and
FPOC resolution
• There is a focus on providing First Point of Contact resolution through the TOM
• Service is enhanced by use of digital channels, where signposting requests can be
dealt with through webchat and may direct citizens to online static content
Non-Emergency
Non-Police matters
(FPOC)
• Any contact relating to non-police matters will be resolved at FPOC and citizens will be
re-directed as appropriate
Non-Emergency
Other Police
Matters (FPOC)
• Servicing of other police matters will be done in the most effective way possible, to
ensure FPOC and a focus on delivering only in-scope services
• Scope of services provided to deal with other Police matters will be re-assessed as part
of the detailed design phase. 18
Submission Draft
Services provided external customers A high level summary of services provided to Emergency and other Partner Agencies is provided below. In principle, the
services delivered to Partners will focus on Contact Management, Incident and Investigation recording and Data management
comparable to services delivered to citizens
19
Group Key Service Retained Improved New Future State
Pa
rtn
er A
ge
ncie
s,E
me
rge
ncy S
erv
ice &
Exte
rna
l B
od
ies
Emergency
Dispatch
• Service provides immediate and critical attendance
• Delivery of this service is driven by THRIIVES assessment, with a focus Threat, Harm
Risk
• E.g: Ambulance/ Police dealing with violent customers or suspicious deaths
Non-Emergency
Investigation
Recording
• Service allows crimes and selected non-crime incidents to be recorded and managed
as investigations on the Athena system
• Service will provide online reporting capacity for a range of crimes where appropriate
• External customers will have access to operators with dedicated recording skills,
which may be appropriate for a range of situations including: Councils or Charities
raising concerns for welfare or reporting Intelligence
Non-Emergency
appointments
management
• Service has been redesigned to allow greater range of appointment types
• Am-Pm appointments may be appropriate for contact with external customers, for
information gathering or engagement
• Other appointments may also be used to service requests from Partners, Agencies
and External Bodies
Non-Emergency
Incident Recording
• Non-crime incidents will be recorded by operators with dedicated recording skills
Investigation and
incident data
management
• All agencies and bodies will be provided with investigations and incident data
management service in the same way as citizens, in the event they have reported a
crime or non-crime which is being investigated
• The service will ensure that all data held is captured and managed in line with
compliance, system and recording requirements
Signposting and
FPOC resolution
(incl. Non-Police
matters)
• Emphasis on FPOC resolution throughout the TOM
• Post implementation, the future service catalogue will assess the scope for a reduced
service offering to Partner Agencies where this is appropriate and aligned to
THRIIVES principles.
Blue Light
Collaboration
Services
• Services delivered under Blue Light collaboration are retained in the future TOM
• These services facilitate direct routes into Force Control Rooms and access to critical
teams within Public Contact 19
Submission Draft
Services provided internal customersInternal Customers will come from both public contact and non public contact functions within BCH. Officers and police staff
form a core segment of the internal customer group. A key service provided will be to support any reporting generated
through the tuServ application.
20
Group Key Service Retained Improved New Future State
Off
icers
, P
olic
e S
taff
& O
the
r D
ep
art
ments Data management
- Athena POLE
data linking
• The service will be provided by Local Policing and will no longer fall within the scope
of Public Contact.
Data management
- Athena data
Quality Assurance
• A service will be provided to quality assure reports but ONLY INITIAL QA WHILST
ALLOCATING
Updates to and on
investigations and/
or incidents
• The service will be provided by Local Policing and will no longer fall within the scope
of Public Contact.
Scenes of Crime
Officer Deployment
• Service previously offered by a dedicated team, SOCO requests will be serviced
through both the IMU and Dispatch functions within the collaborated TOM
Ad-hoc requests for
systems
interrogation or
updates
• New approach to ad-hoc support requests from other business areas. Detailed design
of the processes will focus on delivering key services in line with the Target Operating
Model. Work will be ongoing during implementation to remove services which should
not be owned by Public Contact functions.
• The provision of this service will be further improved by future technology (e.g.
aggregated search)
Submission Draft
Opportunity for further service improvements A detailed review of the current service catalogue was completed as part of the TOM design and indicates a number of
opportunities where services could be rationalised and reduced. However, in order to minimise the impact of the significant
scale of change at implementation, it was decided that all services provided in the as – is will remain and will be reviewed
post implementation. This presents opportunity for further savings
21
• The analysis revealed the following source and types of demand. These are an example of demand types where a policy of no attendance or
attendance based on THRIIVES would reduce downstream demand. It is recognised that from a call demand perspective, the volume of request for
service may remain constant, but the number of deployments would reduce.
• An engagement campaign with the ‘customers’ listed below would be required to effectively reduce contact at source, and in the future may present
further opportunity to reduce demand to Public Contact
Source Demand type Opportunity in the future
Alarms agencies Alarms contact- when a monitored alarm is
activated and an emergency call is made by the
monitoring station via a unique telephone
number to alert police that attendance is
required.
Reduce incoming calls to BCH by moving some or all
of these contacts to a digital service. This is already
being trialled by other Forces.
Bailiffs Assistance –attendance requested by bailiffs
executing a warrant where there is no breach of
peace
Further analysis require on volumes and surrounding
circumstances to these requests, however anecdotal
evidence suggests that requests are currently
supported
Partners (social services /
councils/ mental health)
Social services –child/ adult services and
mental health requesting attendance based on
concern for welfare at the end of day or shift
when they don’t have the resources to attended
Further analysis on volume required, however
anecdotal evidence suggests an opportunity to
develop better working relationships with Partners to
manage high risk concerns for welfare and avoid non
police related demand
Charities Animal welfare – reports of concerns where
RSPCA cannot attend or cannot be reached
A number of requests are received when animal
welfare has no capacity to respond. Clear attendance
policy is required as this is an opportunity to reduce
demand
Blue light Agencies (Fire and
Rescue and Ambulance)
Request to force entry or secure premises with
debatable concerns for welfare
Police attendance is not required to gain entry to
premises to assists a MOP. Clearer guidelines and
collaboration with other blue light partners can reduce
demand volumes
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The Process Layer
22
Submission Draft
Allocations Management
Process Layer - Target Operating ModelLevel 0 end - to - end process view
Digital
Channels 101 999Multi-skilled Call Handlers
First point of
Contact
(FPOC)
Resolution
Advice /
Signposting
B
Storm Incident
C H
Dispatch
Athena
Crime
THRIIVES
THRIIVES
Initial Athena
assessment
Book
Appointment
Review
Appointment
Update
Appointment
Cancel
Appointment
Investigation & Resolution hand off
1
2
Manage Incident
Deploy
SOCO
Prompt Immediate
Athena
Incident
File &
Close
Desk based
enquiry
File & Close Allocation
Key:
Initial Call Handling
Process
Dispatch Process
Investigations
Management Unit
Resolve &
CloseAppointment
POLE data
linking
Athena recording
Review Storm record
from queue
Initial Storm
assessment
Outbound contact to
resolve
Request
SOCO?
Yes
Manage
to end
No
Desk based enquiry
where appropriate
THRIIVES
Resolved?
Yes
No /
requires further action
Athena Investigations Support
23
Create
Incident
3Athena Investigation
SOCO deployment
via Dispatch
Non- emergency Attendance
Outcomes Management
Additional support activity's *
* Scope to be agreed
Allocate
Submission Draft
Manage Contact Functions
Call Handling
• Call Handling has been designed around the capability to make quick and effective deployment decisions using
THRIIVES and to offer first point of contact (FPOC) resolution.
• Handoffs occur from Call Handling to other Public Contact teams to facilitate further investigation and resolution.
The design supports initial call handling and FPOC for a significant proportion of demand, while specialist teams
will manage more complex cases that require investigation from end to end.
• Demand led resourcing will enable the delivery of service to agreed service levels.
• A hand off model will require additional resource, however a multi-skilled model will require a larger number of
resources with investigative skills with potentially higher pay bands.
Dispatch
• As forces will maintain authority for the deployment of their resources, the TOM design will maintain the existing
talk group structure. However to provide savings and add resilience, dispatch teams for two or more Forces may
be co-located and staff trained to work on all areas.
• The Oscar 1 role will be based on either a functional split between high risk incident management and dedicated
FIC (Firearms Incident Command) or on a geographical split based on area. This is subject to current detailed
design and testing by a working group.
• Forensic deployment across BCH will be managed by a dedicated resource within the dispatch function.
Investigations
Management
Unit and
Support
• The Investigations Management Unit will own the Athena Investigation Management and Resolution
Processes for investigations reported by Members of the Public to First Contact. This includes the management
of Athena Crimes, Mandatory Athena Investigations, Storm Incidents and Appointments.
• Desk-Based Enquiries: Initial desktop enquiries that allow the investigation recorder to establish whether or not
there are any further lines of enquiry on the report. This will then influence a decision as to whether the report
should be allocated or finalised. Desktop enquiries within Public Contact will only go so far as to enable the
investigation recorder to make a decision as to whether the crime report should be allocated or finalised
• The resolution of STORM Incidents will follow a similar process to DBE -. Operators in the DBE team will
access STORM records, where a decision is made by the call handler that a phone based resolution is
possible. The objective is to resolve without deployment, realising downstream benefits (e.g. saving officer
attendance time).
• Athena Investigations Support will manage allocations of ongoing investigations to other units and the
Outcomes / finalisation of all crimes.
• This Support Unit is expected to process indirect demand generated by officers and 3rd parties, as well as
support Investigations though activity including: administrative activity. The scope of these processes are yet to
determined.
1
2
3
24
Submission Draft
Call HandlingLevel 1 Process view
High level process design
First Contact within the Public Contact model is a ‘two
tier’ contact management model:
Initial contact
• Call handling will include management of contact
through:
- Emergency and non-emergency telephony with IVR
- Webchat (for non emergency only with appropriate
escalation) if contact becomes an emergency
- Emergency Text Message
- Webchat
• The process will be underpinned by a continuous
THRIIVES assessment until resolution
• Focus on First Point of Contact Resolution (FPOC) and
deployment to immediate and prompt incidents. Calls
which required further engagement will be handed off as
appropriate
• Operators will be able to directly create an appointment
for the citizen
Manage updates
• When contacted to provide updates on ongoing
investigations or incident, call handlers will provide an
update where possible
Managing Investigations through the IMU
• When an Athena investigation (crime or non-crime) is
reported, the operator will transfer the contact to the IMU
to continue with the detailed recording and linking
process in Athena
• Where an update needs to be made to an incident or
investigation, this contact will be transferred to the IMU
Record Contact
details on CMS
Emergency
attendance through
Dispatch
Webchat
Signposting/ Advice
through multi-
channel
Inbound c
hannels
1
TH
RII
VE
S
THRIIVES
THRIIVES
Provide FPOC
resolution where
possible
999 SMSPhone
25
Transfer to the IMU
for resolution and
investigation
Further telephony
engagement to
resolve?
Athena Investigation?
No
Yes
Suitable for
Appointment?
AM/PM Appointments/
Tasking
Fixed Appointments
Drop in Surgery
Yes
Yes
Submission Draft
Dispatch
Level 1 Process view
High level process design
Process:
• Dispatchers will have the ability to deploy BCH
resources for immediate and prompt grades
• There will be no change to the current protocols for
cross border dispatch of local or collaborated
resources.
• A dedicated intel research role will support the dispatch
and Oscar 1 functions providing fast time intel
• Requests for deployment of Scenes of Crime Officers
(SOCO) across BCH will be managed through a
dedicated resource in the dispatch function.
• The Oscar 1 role will be based on either a functional
split between high risk incident management and
dedicated FIC (Firearms Incident Command) or on a
geographical split based on area, pending agreement
from the 3 Chief Constables
• Oscar 1 processes is subject to current detailed design
and testing by a working group, scheduled for after Full
Business Case submission
Storm Log
transfer
B C H
Immediate Prompt
Dispatch
Dispatch needed
Manage Incident
THRIIVES
Escalation to supervisor
where necessary
Gather Intel to support
Dispatch decision
Request SOCO
SOCO
Deployment
Re-direct misroute
2
SOCO only request
Inbound c
hannels
26
Yes
Update MOP and set up
appointment or transfer to
IMU for resolution
NoResource
available?
IMU SOCO
Request
Submission Draft
Investigations Management UnitLevel 1 Process view (1/2)
High level process design
The Investigations Management Unit (IMU) will manage 3 key
steps in the end- to- end management of crime and non-crime :
1) recording and linking for reports made by Members of the
Public 2) the Allocation of ongoing investigations to other Units
and 3) the Outcome / finalisation for all crimes
1. ‘Non- Emergency’ route – the reporting of non-
emergency
Direct Demand generated by a MOP contacting BCH
• Calls from MOP’s will be transferred to the IMU for
recording and linking which will include an initial
assessment to determine if a report should be made
• Once a the report is made and linked, the operator will
determine whether the report can be filed, allocated or
transferred for desk based enquiry (DBE).
• If a SOCO is required, this will be requested through the
Forensic Deployment resource in Dispatch
• The DBE team will complete a high level enquiry to
determine if there are proportionate further lines of enquiry,
and will also allocate investigations as appropriate
• The resolution of STORM Incidents will follow a similar
process to DBE -. Operators in the DBE team will access
STORM records, where a decision is made by the call
handler that a phone based resolution is possible. The
objective is to resolve without deployment, realising
downstream benefits (e.g. saving officer attendance time).
2. ‘Emergency’ route – the reporting of an investigation is
completed by an officer in response to an emergency
attendance
• Local Policing will manage the recording, QA and linking
of POLE data for initial reports as well as for all ongoing
investigations.
• Officers will conduct the initial investigation and identify
further lines of enquiry
• All requests for allocations to another investigations unit
will be managed by the IMU
3
1. ‘Non-emergency’ route 2. ‘Emergency’ route
3 .
27
Submission Draft
Investigations Management UnitLevel 1 Process view (2/2)
High level process design
The Investigations Management Unit (IMU) will manage 3 key
steps in the end- to- end management of crime and non-crime
investigations: 1) recording and linking for reports made by
Members of the Public 2) the allocation of ongoing
investigations to other Units, and 3) the management of
outcomes / finalisation for all crimes
3. Athena Investigations Support
• Includes managing the allocations for further investigations
and outcomes for all crimes
Allocations:
• IMU conduct quick review of investigation to either screen
out or allocate. The initial screening and investigation will
have been completed by the Officer, and this is an
additional value-add step to improve screen out rates.
• The IMU operator will also correct any glaring errors around
classifications and will also scan for an update to any flags
required.
Outcomes (crimes):
• If the report is suitable for finalisation the officer and
supervisor will add outcome and rationale, and it will be
sent to the IMU when ready.
• The IMU operator will scan the report and rationale and
confirm that the outcome is correctly assigned
• If correct, the IMU operator will finalise the crime or correct
the outcome and then finalise
• Non –crime outcomes will be managed by Local Policing
Support activities
• The scope of support activities have yet to be agreed with
various teams.
3
1. ‘Non-emergency’ route 2. ‘Emergency’ route
3 .
28
Submission Draft
T H R I I V E S – managing operational risk and citizen safetyA common decisioning approach as part of the collaborated Target Operating Model
29
T
H
R
I
I
V
E
S
THREAT – Assessment made immediately during any initial contact . Based on time, place and nature of events. Deployment
decision or next actions are based on information and intelligence gathered on any imminent or probable threat or danger.
Increased likelihood of deployment due to identified threat happening in real time.
HARM - Assessment made immediately during any initial contact . Based on time, place and nature of events. Deployment
decision or next actions are based on information and intelligence gathered on any imminent or probable harm that has been or
may be caused. Increased likelihood of deployment to prevent harm if the event is happening in real time.
RISK - Assessment made immediately during any initial contact . Based on time, place and activity of events. Deployment
decisions or next actions based on information and intelligence gathered on any imminent or probable risk to public or property.
Increased likelihood of deployment if the incident is occurring at the point of report.
INVESTIGATION – Assessment of the need for investigation. Focus on: Is a crime in progress? Was a suspect seen? Previous
occurrence of similar incidents, pre-curser offences, evidence at scene, known offenders, police powers that apply. If slow time
response, what can we do before the officer gets to the scene? Is the response appropriate to the victim or enquiry? Focus on
Golden Hour principles, which highlight urgency to attend to investigate in a timely manner.
INTELLIGENCE – Assessment made on a need to gather intelligence. May include responses to call that result in information
being extracted from CCTV, Interviews and other sources. The intelligence may not be linked to any live investigations at point
of report, but is still considered to be of use. Likewise, intelligence related to an ongoing investigation, may emerge from an
unrelated call.
VULNERABILITY – Assessment of vulnerability based on individual cases or pre-determined criteria. Factors that drive a
vulnerability assessment may include, but are not limited to: age, social group, community, location, repeat victims. Is the
individual vulnerable or is it the situation or circumstance that makes them vulnerable? Will our actions cause any adverse
impact to the victim or situation.
ENGAGEMENT – Scope for engagement with a group or individuals which may promote community relationships or safety.
Which officer is best qualified to deal with the situation? This could relate to: ongoing community/ neighbourhood issues,
perceived impact from attendance, cases of discrimination. This could also include reluctant victims and witnesses along with
persistent complainers dissatisfied with service.
SPECIFIC NEED – Allows for deployment and incident assessment based on specific need, which local forces can select
subject to special requirements. The detail of these will be worked through in implementation.
29
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The Information and Performance
Management Layer
30
Submission Draft
The Performance Management Approach
The collaboration of Public Contact functions across Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire (BCH) will
deliver a number of benefits but will also introduce a complex multifaceted environment that requires a
considerable focus to manage the service provided to the Citizens and Partners of the three Forces.
The TOM proposes a Performance Management framework that:
• Is a deliberate approach to the delivery, monitoring and improvement of the key objectives of the organisation.
• Meets the information needs of a number of Internal and External stakeholder and business critical functions
• Ensures delivery standards are maintained and improved over time. This is illustrated below:
BCH Public Contact
Operating Environment
Beds
Cambs
Herts
Demand for
service
Stakeholders
External: all external stakeholders with an interest in
performance from compliance to service delivery to cost
management
Internal: senior leadership, operational leads and
operators require different measures to manage
performance
Performance Layers
Strategic: a long term view of performance against
objectives
Tactical: an interim view of performance; calibrating the
system to achieve alignment with performance measures
Operational: frequent monitoring of performance outputs
focusing on quality of service levels
Performance Management
Monitor
ImproveEvaluate
31
Submission Draft
Performance Management – a balanced
scorecard approach
A Performance Management Framework is the means by which operational performance is:
• Articulated and agreed, providing a common understanding of what we are trying to achieve
• A mechanism to embed a performance culture within the organisation
• A mechanism to frequently evaluate how well we are performing and quickly address challenges
to our performance
Performance Management systems need to provide a number of stakeholders with information to
enable decision making. However, effective performance monitoring considers a holistic view of
performance, based on the strategic objectives that are important to all stakeholders, including:
1. Managing the risk of the organisation
2. Delivering customer service
3. Managing the operational efficiency of the organisation
4. Learning and continuous improvement
This approach is a balance between qualitative and quantitative measures, avoiding the pitfalls a
singular focus on one dimension can bring:
• A single view of performance leads to a narrow view of the organisation – we may be doing
well on one aspect, but at the expense of another
• A misled view that the system is performing well, when there may be other problems further
downstream
32
Submission Draft
A multi-dimensional view of the organisation
1. Provides a simple pictorial view of the most important performance measures across 4 key dimensions herby providing
a balanced view
2. It is based on both qualitative and quantitative measures, providing a holistic view of performance
3. Provides a check of progress against key measures
4. Set towards action
5. It changes over time as the organisation and strategy change
6. The dashboard is an aggregation of granular KPI’s and provides different levels of operational information
Risk Management Effective Customer
Service
Operational Efficiency Continuous Improvement
Illustrative
33
Greater victim access
to information
Increased public contact
through low cost channels
Fewer record information
errors
Improved satisfaction with
First Contact
Better signposting to other
agencies
Reduced number of
unnecessary deployments
More effective
management of demandImproved staff satisfaction
Increased flexibility to
changes in demand
Be
ne
fits
re
ali
sed
The benefits listed above have been developed by the Benefits Realisation workstream to articulate some of the key outcomes expected
from the business transformation that would be delivered through Public Contact collaboration. It is noted that these to some degree
align with the key strategic measures in the balanced scorecard, demonstrating alignment between what the environment will measure
and monitor and the benefits that will be expected as a result of change
Submission Draft
The structure of a balanced scorecard
Strategic objectives
(Strategic Layer)
Primary drivers
(Tactical Layer)
KPI’s
(Operational Layer)
• The Public Contact dashboard is
clearly linked to the key strategic
objectives of the three Forces
• This will drive alignment of the KPI’s
to specific outcomes
• Delivers project objectives
• These are the specific drivers which
underpin the strategic objectives
• Drivers provide an understanding of
the critical components within the
specific area of performance that must
be managed
• Delivers benefits
• A balanced scorecard provides a
holistic view of performance and what
is important
• A simple and clear link to strategy /
objectives / benefit realisation
• Focus on critical components only
• No more than 25 key drivers linked to
the strategic measures
• Include both quantitative and
qualitative drivers to balance quality
and outcomes
• Standard set of measures across the
operating model
• Enables managers to measure,
monitor and control performance
• Drives action
• Measures progress of benefits
• Include only meaningful measures
• Measures must be actionable and
controllable
• Measures must be linked to the
process looking at both outcome
measures (lag indicators) and input
measures (lead Indicators)
Good practiceComponents Purpose
34
Submission Draft
The balanced scorecard framework - SAMPLE
Risk Management Effective Customer
Service
Operational
Efficiency
Continuous
Improvement
NCRS
Compliance
HOCR
NSIR
Outcomes
Accuracy
Victim Code
Adherence
Compliance
Immediate/
Critical
response
999
Attendance
Citizen
satisfaction
Victim
satisfaction
Complaints
Quality Service
Service
SLA’s
Channel
conversion
rate
Process
errors
Quality Service
Service
SLA’s
Process
SLA’s
Citizen
engagement
Partner
engagement
Contact
Management
Measures
Service Cost
Management
Employee
performance
Training
investment
Employee Learning
Performance
Management
System
improvement
and failure
Process
improvement
Employee
turnover
Athena
compliance
Process
consistency
Employee
welfare
Quality of
Outcome
Non-
emergency
attendance
Grading
35
Efficiency Effectiveness Legitimacy
Risk Management
Ris
k M
anagem
ent
Ris
k M
ana
gem
ent
Risk Management
Call
Handling
SLA
Submission Draft
Ongoing Performance ManagementThe Balance Scorecard has been agreed by the Chief Constables as the singular framework for performance management.
Post FBC, a number of key activities will be required to complete defining the Performance Management process as
described below:
36
Step 1: Design the
Performance Framework
The agreed framework for
monitoring and measuring
performance of Public Contact
collaboration, incorporating the
Athena IMU
Post FBC activity
Step 2: Develop detailed KPIs
1. Formulate process led KPIs
2. Establish list of lead and lag KPI’s
3. Identify source of KPI’s (system generated or manual
process e.g. customer satisfaction from surveys)
4. Agree reporting format (dashboards or detailed
reports in word or excel or other format)
5. Agree reporting frequency
Step 3 Develop Reporting and MI capability
1. Review capability with IT
2. Develop reporting tools
Step 4: embed Reporting and MI capability with
operational teams
1. Operational teams assume ownership for the
production of MI and reporting cycle
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The Technology Layer
37
Submission Draft
ICT requirements to support the TOM
38
As-is ICT landscape To-be ICT landscape
Telephony
Telephone Fax SMS
STORMCrime File
CMSii
Crime Information System
Fo
rce
sp
ecific
ICCS BCH specific
Mapping
Telephony
Telephone Fax SMS
Web Portal
CRM/ Customer Management System
Key requirements and features of the future ICT landscape
• Early implementation of online reporting with more integrated capability
delivered in the target state (supports straight throughput processing and self
service). Provides capability for both crime and non-crime reporting.
• Wider choice of online channels to shift demand away from telephony
• Contact Management System/ Customer Relationship Management is fully
integrated with contact technology to record data, supported decision making
by providing staff operators with a view of historical contact
• Aggregated search to interrogate all legacy BCH systems
• Integration between the Customer Management Solution, Athena and Storm is
required to reduce double keying
• Smart Storm will be used to create appointments
• Implementation of the same STORM command and control, mapping and
airwave/ telephony technology as per current capability.
• Note: Airwave will be replaced in 2017 and the solution architecture is required
to support the future ESN
• The tuServ mobile solution is the interface between the IMU and local policing
• Common ICT landscape to allow common reporting
Features of the current ICT landscape
• Contact Management and telephony: Forces are currently on different
contact management solutions but are in process of moving to a single
vendor.
• There is some online capability but this is mainly static content and
web form based
• Almost 50% of contact to the Force is not recorded
• Crime Recording systems are Force specific
• STORM Command and Control system configuration is Force specific
with separate ICCS
• There is no single access to information or enable decision making
• Current ICT infrastructure does not allow integration between existing
systems and does not facilitate a holistic view of all relevant data linked
to live investigations and incidents
IVR
Aggregated Intelligence / Info Search
Athena
Single STORM
Single ICCSAirwave
Line of Business Applications
Enterprise Applications
Reporting Applications
Enterprise Applications
Reporting Applications
Web portal
Self-Service Web
Chat Email
tuServ
Emergency Services Network (2017)
Cha
nn
el
Web chat
tuServ
Single Mapping
Airwave (redundant by 2017)
Cha
nn
el
Line of Business Applications
New ICT
requirements
Submission Draft
Technology Solution Concept
39
Channels
Citizen
Contact Centre
Enterprise
REPORTING
Business Intelligence
Management Information
Performance Information
ENTERPRISE APPLICATIONS
Instant Messaging
SMS Gateway
Diary System
Self Service
HR
Duty Management
H Property
C Property
B Property
PNC
Airwave Recording/
Playback System
Athena
Airwave
ESN
CRM
tuServ
LINE OF BUSINESS APPLICATIONS
Contact Centre System
IVRCommand and Control System
Telephone System
ICCSSingle
Intelligence Search
MappingKnowledge
Base
Telephone Recording/
Playback System
CCTV
WEB PORTAL
Web Site Web Chat Telephone Fax SMS
TELEPHONY
• The solution concept diagram
was prepared by the ICT
workstream based on a set of
processes and business
requirements, describing the
capabilities needed to deliver
the TOM
• Further activity will be required
post FBC to provide detailed
requirements to support vendor
selection and procurement
processes as well as design and
implementation
• The solution concept is
however, a suitable high level
description of how the ICT
workstream envision delivery of
the key business and process
requirements
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The Organisation Layer
40
Submission Draft
Organisational Structure and Roles
Organisational structure – Implementation and End State
41
The new Target Operating Model will be supported by a re-designed Organisational Structure. Key design features and cost
reductions associated with this model are discussed in this section. This will cover both the final management structure and
interim management structure
The TOM will drive a reduction in management and supervisor roles and will increase the proportion of police staff operators
in the organisation to future manage cost. The future management structure and FTE will be enforced in a staged approach.
Implementation and End State FTE will differ. Initial supervisory ratio will be 1:10, moving to 1:12 as efficiencies and working
practice is embedded.
RoleBaseline excl.
Athena
Baseline Incl.
Athena
Collaborated TOM (at
Implementation)
Collaborated TOM
(at End State)
Movement from Baseline Incl
Athena to Collaborated End State
Management (incl.
Oscar 1, excl
Supervisor)
35.2 35.2 26.0 25.0 -10.2
Supervisors 69.2 75.4 63.5 50.5 -24.9
Operators 549.5 605.5 659.6 614.0 8.5
Support Staff
(RMU, Training,
Admin etc)
20.9 25.9 19.0 12.0 -13.9
Total Staff 674.8 742.0 768.1 701.5 -40.5
Note: the number of FTE broken down per function (Call Handling, Dispatch, IMU operators, etc can be found in the
detailed cost model. A programme decision was made to provide high level volumes
Submission Draft
Implementation Organisational Structure (Interim)
42
Chief Superintendent
Customer Service &
Digital ManagerManager Location W.Manager Location H.
Superintendent/ PSE
Assistant
Manager
Location H.
Oscar 1
RMU &Training
Assistant
Manager
RMU Staff –
Athena & PC
(H, W)
Trainers –
Athena & PC
(H, W)
Superintendent/ PSE
KEY
Interim uplifted FTE
numbers for
implementation
Temp role for
Implementation
Assistant
Manager
Location W.
Oscar 1
Roles with strategic focus
IMU Manager
IRC Operators
Location WIMU Operators
Location W
IMU
Operators
Location H
DBE Operators
Location H
Assistant
Manager
Location H.
Assistant
Manager
Location W.
Call Handling
Staff
Dispatch
Staff
Call
Handling
Staff
Dispatch
StaffIntel
Staff
IMU
Supervisors*
Location H.
IMU
Supervisors*
Location W..
Key Op Model features:
• An interim management structure has been designed to provide support throughout the implementation process
• Implementation of Chief Superintendent, Superintendent and Managers will commence immediately following FBC sign off to aid the change
process and provide leadership and strategic direction
• There will be a greater requirement for supervision through the change period and shortly after, which will not be required once the function is
settled into business-as-usual. Therefore, the initial supervisory ratio will be 1:10.
• Where this is critical to implementation, key teams will have additional FTE to manage uplift in implementation workload
Str
ate
gic
La
ye
r a
cro
ss
bo
th l
oc
ati
on
s
Op
era
tio
nal L
aye
r
Admin
Location H. Admin
Location W.
CH
Supervisors
Location H.
Dispatch
Supervisors
Location H.
CH
Supervisors
Location W.
Dispatch
Supervisors
Location W
* Detective Sergeant roles will be distributed across all IMU, DBE and Resolution Team Supervisor posts. Exact split of posts is tbd post implementation.
* Based on DS grade within role
Submission Draft
Implementation Organisational Structure – Design Features
43
Role Rank Key changes and responsibility during Implementation Phase
Head of Public
Contact
Chief
Superintendent
Implementation of the Chief Superintendent will be commenced immediately after FBC
sign off. The role will provide senior support and leadership during the change process.
Deputy Head
of Public
Contact
Superintendent
/ Police Staff
Equivalent
Implementation of two Superintendent or PSE posts will be commenced immediately after
FBC sign off. One of these roles will be a short-term position, focused on the change
process and working closely with implementation Enablers and Design. The role will be
dissolved following full re-location of staff. Superintendents/ PSE will work across all
locations to ensure cultural cohesion, focused on implementation approach and strategy.
Management
Tier*
Departmental
Manager
Four Managers will be implemented during a phase of accelerated implementation,
commencing immediately after FBC sign off. During implementation, these managers will
provide continuity and support, acting as the Implementation Authority along with current
Heads of Force Control Rooms.
RMU Operator Operator There is an additional requirement for RMU staff to support implementation of new shift
pattern and management of shift changes, which will no longer be required in end state.
Assume 2 additional trainers and 3 additional RMU resources to manage the increased
FTEs through Public Contact implementation. This will support on Athena training also.
Training Unit Training
Operators
There will be short term uplift of FTE in the Training Unit to support training of new
processes and recruitment.
This team will have an increased headcount until after implementation. There will be a
substantial training requirement on implementation as staff grow familiar with new
processes and IT. This will reduce in end state.
Admin Support Admin
Operators
Dedicated admin staff will be required during the implementation but this activity can be
absorbed across the workforce in end state. During Implementation one Admin FTE will be
located on each site, supporting across Call Handling, Dispatch and IMU functions.
*Management Tier – Refers to Call Handling & Dispatch Managers Location 1 &2, Customer Service and Digital Manager and IMU Manger.
The table below highlights key changes to the structure that are specific to the Implementation phase. Full
description of the end-state Org structure and roles and responsibilities can be found in Slides 41&42.
Submission Draft
End State Organisational Structure
44
Chief Superintendent
CH & Dispatch Manager
Location W.
CH & Dispatch Manager
Location H.
RMU Staff –
Athena & PC
(H:W)
Trainers –
Athena & PC
(H, W)
KEY
Assistant
Manager
Location W.
Oscar 1
Call Handling
Staff
Dispatch
Staff
Roles with strategic focus
CH
Supervisors
Location H.
Support/ Agile Functions
Investigations and
Incident Management
Contact Management
Superintendent/ PSE
Call
Handling
Staff
Dispatch
Staff
Intel
Staff
DBE and IRC
Operators LW.
IMU Operators
Location W.
IMU Operators
Location H.
DBE Operators
Location H.
Assistant
Manager
Location H.
Assistant
Manager
Location W
IMU Supervisors
Location H
IMU Supervisors
Location W.
Key Op Model features:
• The Org structure will focus on both the strategic and operational layer, with strategic roles having oversight across functions and locations.
• Chief Superintendent and Superintendents/ PSEs will work across all locations and functions to ensure cultural cohesion and provide
leadership and strategic guidance.
• They will be supported by four Managers focused on specific functions or locations.
• Each location will have a dedicated Manager for call handling and dispatch. Managers will work together to maintain consistent ways of work
and culture across the two locations. This model will enable business resilience and promote knowledge sharing.
• The Customer Service and Digital Manager will work across all locations, with an overview of agile functions
• The IMU Manager will also maintain a cross-location overview, although they will be supported by site specific Assistant Managers.
• The TOM has been designed to achieve a 1:12 supervisory ratio across all functions.
IMU Manager
Op
era
tio
nal L
aye
r
Customer Service &
Digital Manager
Assistant
Manager
Location H.
Oscar 1Assistant
Manager
Dispatch
Supervisors
Location H.
CH
Supervisors
Location W.
Dispatch
Supervisors
Location W.
Mirrored Structure across
Hinchinbrook & WGC
Str
ate
gic
La
ye
r a
cro
ss
bo
th l
oc
ati
on
s
* Detective Sergeant roles will be distributed across all IMU, DBE and Resolution Team Supervisor posts. Exact split of posts is tbd post implementation.
* Based on DS grade within role
Submission Draft
End State Organisational Structure - Roles and Responsibilities
45
Role Rank Responsibilities
Head of Public
Contact
Chief
Superintendent
Responsible for overall management of the collaborated Public Contact function. Will
provide strategic direction and leadership across all functions. They have final
accountability for the delivery of collaborated Public Contact function.
Deputy Head
of Public
Contact
Superintendent
/ Police Staff
Equivalent
Responsible for providing leadership and strategic direction, reporting directly into the
Chief Superintendent. The Superintendent/ PSE role will work across all locations, with a
strategic focus to ensure cultural cohesion in the future operations. Responsible for
deputising for Head of Public Contact. The future model will have only a single
Superintendent.
Call Handling
& Dispatch
Managers
Location 1&2
Departmental
Manager
Managers will take control of one of the two sites respectively, overseeing both Call
Handling and Dispatch. They will maintain control of cross-functional teams, focused on
operational running of a single location. Mechanisms will be in place to drive a close
working relationship between these two roles across the two locations to align on ways of
working and culture.
Customer
Service &
Digital
Manager
Departmental
Manager
The Customer Service and Digital manager will manage the quality of service provided by
the department. This will include complaints and satisfaction. They will further be
responsible for the management of digital channels and oversee the reporting element of
this. They are expected to be agile, working across both locations. The Training Team and
RMU will report into the CS and Digital manager.
IMU Manager Departmental
Manager
The IMU manager will oversee IMU functions of investigations management (crime and
non-crime), desk based enquiry and incident resolution across both locations.
The IMU manager will further oversee Athena Investigations Support and Data
Management for ongoing investigations
The Manager will be supported by 2 location specific Assistant Managers.
Oscar 1 Inspector The Oscar 1 role will be based on either a functional split between high risk incident
management and dedicated FIC (Firearms Incident Command) or on a geographical split
based on area. Currently awaiting confirmation from the 3 Chief Constables.
The Oscar 1 is responsible for leadership and direction of across First Contact functions.
More detailed responsibility will be defined based on final role profile.
Submission Draft
Future Organisational Structure - Roles and Responsibilities
46
Role Rank Responsibilities
Supervisors Officer Rank –
Sergeant
Civilian Rank –
Supervisor
Responsibilities will include; line management, managing more complex cases and
ensuring processes are followed and compliance adhered to across all functions.
Supervisors will report into the Management Tier
Dispatch
Operators
Operators Operators will control the dispatch and command process, managing the deployment of
resources to high-risk incidents.
Call Handlers Operators Control first point of contact across all channels – assessing and conducting initial risk
assessment. They will be responsible to channelling the contact to the correct team.
IMU Operators Operator Responsible managing the assessment and recording of Athena investigations (crime and
non-crime).
Responsible for data quality and data linking to ensure Public Contact Athena compliance.
Desk Based
Enquiry &
Resolution
Team
Operators
Operators Desk based Enquiry and Resolution teams have been split out from other IMU operators,
due to the functional difference in this role.
Responsible for conducting desk based enquiry for Athena investigations to identify viable
lines of enquiry and to allocate appropriately.
Responsible for STORM incident investigation telephony resolution to minimise
deployment.
IRC Operator posts will be filled by Police Constables, who will provide the investigative
rigour and resolution focussed approach to the processes.
RMU Staff –
Athena & PC
Operators Responsible for the resource planning and logistics across all public contact functions,
including shift pattern changes.
Training Staff –
Athena & PC
Operators Responsible for the planning and delivery of training to enable resources across all
functions to provide a high quality service
Responsibility for Athena training will be shared with dedicated Athena trainers provided by
the central Athena team.
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The People Layer
47
Submission Draft
People (1/3) There are a number of people related requirements which are required to deliver the TOM, and these high
level requirements are listed below. More detailed requirements can be found in the detailed People and
HR requirements catalogue.
48
Function within
the TOM
Role / capability People requirements
Manage Contact
Contact Management (Call
Handling
• Operators will be multi-skilled to handle emergency and non-emergency
contact across all channels (phone, Web chat, email)
• Operators will control the contact process, managing the gathering of
information from the MOP to manage handle time and the outcome of the
process, delivering operational requirements around handle time and
management of decisioning risk
• A supervisory ratio of 1:10 will apply at implementation, expanding to 1:12 at
end state of the operating model. This will provide closer supervision and more
support as the new model is implemented and reduces down as the model
stabilises
• This role will operate 24/7 and will support flexible working patterns around a
core working pattern to meet service delivery requirements but also provide
opportunity for more cost effective workforce management
Dispatch and Intel research • Dispatchers will be required to be skilled on all talk groups
• While there will be no cross Force / Border deployment of resources,
Dispatchers will not be dedicated to a specific Force, therefore developing
wider deployment and control ability
• Dispatchers will be also have a secondary call handling skill to provide further
resilience for the 999 function
• All Dispatchers will be skilled to manage SOCO deployments and will fulfil this
function on a rotational basis
• A dedicated Intel Researcher role will operate alongside the Oscar 1, providing
real time access to intel information to support deployment decisions in critical
and high risk incidents.
• This role will operate 24/7 and will support flexible work patterns.
• Talk groups will require a minimum of two dispatchers with a talk group
occupancy (business) of ~ 50%. These minimum requirements will be met to
drive operational risk management
Submission Draft
People (2/3)
49
Function within
the TOM
Role / capability People requirements
Manage
Process
IMU (recording and linking) • Resources will require investigative skills to support the reporting and linking
of Athena investigations for crime and non-crime
• IMU Operators will also require soft skills around customer service and contact
management as they will primarily be customer facing providing a crime and
non-crime reporting service
• This function will operate 24/7 and will support flexible working patterns
• It is expected that the recording function might be closed down during night
time hours when demand is low, however this awaits agreement from the
Athena team
• A supervisory ratio of 1:10 will apply at implementation, expanding to 1:12 at
end state of the operating model
IMU (Investigations Support,
DBE and incident resolution)
• The Investigations Support Team in the IMU is responsible for the allocations
for investigations and outcomes / finalisation of crimes. This role will require a
knowledge of the structure of local policing in order to make effective
allocation decisions and a detailed knowledge for crime outcomes
• These roles will be multi-skilled with the recording and linking role to provide
operational resilience and opportunity for resources to deliver a number of
aspects of the IMU function, thereby enriching the role
• A dedicated Desk Based Enquiry (DBE) function will manage further
investigations where appropriate with a view to reducing the number that are
allocated to local policing. This function will manage crime and non-crime
investigations as well as STORM based resolution (those STORM Incidents
which can resolved through a phone intervention and avoid a deployment)
• An investigative skill is required and the role can be staffed by officers
• The function will operate 24/7 initially, however it is anticipated that the
function may move to close during quiet night hours. This requires
confirmation from the Athena team.
• A supervisory ratio of 1:10 will apply at implementation, expanding to 1:12 at
end state of the operating model
Submission Draft
People (3/3)
50
Function within
the TOM
Role / capability People requirements
Support
Functions
Resource Management Unit
(RMU)
• A dedicated RMU is required due to the size of TOM for Public Contact and
the IMU
• Resources will be required to manage the forecasting and scheduling for
• Contact Management and Dispatch
• IMU
• The ability to manage resources in a real time basis is also required to support
operational managers meet sudden changes in demand or resource conditions
• This role will operate a standard work week with standard operating hours and
will support flexible working requirements
Training • A dedicated training team is required to support implementation training and
ongoing training and development needs
• Roles will be dedicated and required to deliver training to enable resources
across all functions to deliver a high quality service
• This role will operate a standard work week with standard operating hours and
will support flexible working requirements
Customer Service / Digital
Channel Management
• This role requires the skills to manage service and customer satisfaction
through all channels
• This role will also require additional skills to manage and monitor the
performance of the new digital channels (online, web chat), also owning
recommendations for future enhancements
• This role will operate a standard work week with standard operating hours and
will support flexible working requirements
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
The Location and Physical Site Layer
51
Submission Draft
Locations – configuration recommendations (1)This table shows the number of FTEs that will be assigned to each site and the absolute minimum number of workstations required per site to provide sufficient space to meet peak demand for the core roles of Call handling, despatch, IMU and IRC.
See notes on next slide for more detailed explanation
52
SINGLE SITE HUNTINGDON WGC
Work stations required at peak
demand
Work stations required at peak
demand
Work stations required at peak
demand
CALL HANDLING 61 30 31
CALL HANLDING SUPVS 6 3 3
DISPATCH 36 18 18
DISPATCH SUPVS 4 2 2
IMU & DBE OPERATORS 66 28 38
IMU & DBE SUPVS 7 3 4
IRC OPERATORS 6 2 4
OSCAR 1 2 2 2
MANAGERS /
ASST MANAGERS
8 4 4
TRAINING 6 0 6
RMU 6 0 6
TOTAL 204 92 112
Submission Draft
Locations – configuration recommendations (2)
53
The maximum number of workstations available per site is c.135 at WGC and c.95 at Huntingdon. In order to
accommodate the number of workstations required to meet peak demand for core services the following has been
applied -
• Call handling FTE split 50/50 between the two sites to provide maximum resilience and disaster recovery options.
• Cambs and Herts dispatch functions to remain at their current sites. This will minimise impact on affected staff and
reduce loss of experienced operators. The location of the Bedfordshire Dispatch function will be determined during
detailed design.
• The IMU is split is expected to be approximately equal, however this will be determined during detailed design.
• Intel and Training sited at WGC due to additional available space however this may change after detailed design is
completed. These functions could be considered for Agile working if required.
• It should be noted that the peak demand for each function may not, and probably will not be, at the same time. For
example, peak demand for despatch talk groups is 1800-2100 on Fri/Sat evenings, but peak for CH and IMU is
normally 1000-1300 weekdays. This should result in “spare” desks in some functions when others are running at
capacity.
• If some CH desks are fitted with ICCS and some despatch desks are fitted with appropriate telephony, this will give
more scope for extra capacity on these functions if required and would also provide extra resilience for fall back /
business continuity scope.
The above split is deemed “workable” for the purposes of the FBC but will require detailed design work to be
completed post FBC to ensure the most effective and efficient processes are employed.
These plans may be amended post FBC as a result of changes to estates & ICT capacity or detailed
operational planning on other related roles such as the function of Oscar 1.
Submission Draft
Location configuration criteria
The TOM design has set out the following considerations in order to assess the number of feasible location
configurations to support all FTE required.
1. Peak staffing- workstations requirements will be based on the highest number of staff required to meet
demand within SLAs at the peak of daily demand.
2. A small percentage of additional workstations will be required to provide resilience in the event of
failure with any of the ICT on a desk or an unexpected demand spike.
3. Workstation size / space – each desk requires 3 screens to support the contact management and
Dispatch function and should be sized appropriately
4. Resilience and load balancing: ideally the call handling and dispatch functions should be split 50:50
into two locations, providing a mirrored solution that meets disaster recovery requirements. However
this is not practical due to constraints placed by the capacity of the two sites. The maximum split that
could still meet disaster recovery requirements would be 30:70, with the maintenance of business
critical 999 and dispatch functions as the key priorities.
5. A number of additional resilience / disaster recovery requirements are being scoped and will be part of
detailed design work post FBC. It is anticipated that a combination of the current facilities available at
Stevenage, Thorpe Wood, March & Parkside will be sufficient to meet the DR requirements.
54
Submission Draft
Locations – Resilience requirementsAs the location configuration is based on a two site mirrored design with an equitable balance of call
handling and dispatch functions across both sites, the design effectively provides operational resilience.
In the event of a spontaneous failure at a single site, demand for the mission critical functions of 999 call
handling and dispatch will seamlessly cut-over to the remaining site in a hot-handover.
101 and IMU functions will be scaled back until full service at the affected site can be restored.
In the event of medium to long term disaster recovery requirement, 999 and dispatch functions would
remain at the unaffected site along with a scaled back volume of 101 and IMU functions up to the capacity
of the site. Additional 101 and IMU functionality would then be established at one of the current resilience
sites for BCH.
Current resilience sites (which do not require additional spending) are located as follows -
• 35 desks available for Call Handling and Dispatch in Stevenage Police station (with potential for an
extra 10 to 15 positions with additional spending)
• 20 Call Handler desks at March Police Station;
• 13 Dispatch desks at Thorpe Wood
• 6 Call Handler desks at Parkside Police Station
It is anticipated that not all of the above DR sites will be required in the future model as one or at most two
will provide sufficient capacity to meet the needs. This may release further estate capacity back to the host
force.
Further detailed planning will be completed post FBC
55
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
Appendix 1: Approach to demand
modelling
56
Submission Draft
Understand the baseline
57
Submission Draft
Demand Model Map
The below diagram shows the approach used for the Demand Modelling in a step-
by-step format. This model map details the different stages that formed the
approach to Demand Modelling.
58
Approach to Demand Modelling
1. Understand
baseline2. Understand TOM demand
3. Prepare data for
upload to Workforce
Planning tool
1.1 Understand baseline
telephony demand profile
1.2 Identify baseline
STORM and Crime system
profile
2.1 Identify drivers of demand movement and
future demand types
2.2 Apply relevant Channel Shift
2.3 Estimate demand movement
2.3.1 – Resolution Team
2.3.2 – Athena mandated investigations from
STORM
2.3.3 – Athena crime investigations
2.3.4 – Demand remaining on STORM
2.3.5 – MOP Generated Crime
2.3.6 – Additional IMU demand
2.3.7 – DBE demand
2.3.8 – Appointments
2.3.9 – Ongoing Athena investigations
3.1 Distribute demand over 24
hour period
3.2 Attribute Average Handle
Time to each demand type
Submission Draft
Demand Funnel Approach
59
This document will explain how we used our data sources and information to
determine the demand into an IMU – both for Athena investigations and a
Resolution Team
As Is
Emergency
597,334 (records)
34% of total call volume
Incidents
156,386
26% incidents
10% call volume
Prompt
29,044
5% incidents
2% call volume
Appt.
114,763
19% incidents
7% call volume
Immediate
88,101
15% incidents
6% call volume
Scheduled
208,910
35% incidents
13% call volume
Non attend
Non - Emergency
In the current environment, all incidents raised are on STORM and are broken down into five categories: Non Attended;
Scheduled; Appointment; Prompt or Immediate.
The Appointment demand above includes appointments for only Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire as Herts were not
using appointments at the time of the data extract.
Due to process changes as a result of collaboration, and the creation of an Athena IMU and Resolution Team - the
demand has to be reapportioned in some cases in the To Be environment.
Submission Draft
As-Is BCH Demand FunnelThe diagram below describes the high level types and volumes of demand managed with the
Public Contact domain
* Digital demand currently includes email
** Telephony using current IVR success rates
*** Appointment data contains only Beds and Cambs data
**** The variance is between the crimes recorded in the
system and actual telephony demand relating to Crimes
77,468
(call volume)
5% total
Signposting
783,292
(call volume)
49% total
Other Police
Matters
Emergency
597,334 (records)
34% of total call volume
Incidents
156,386
26% incidents
10% call volume
Prompt
29,044
5% incidents
2% call volume
Appt.***
114,763
19% incidents
7% call volume
Immediate
88,101
15% incidents
6% call volume
Scheduled
208,910
35% incidents
13% call volume
Non attend
Non - Emergency
1,594,000 (total calls)
999 | 270,980 (17%) 101 | 1,323,020 (83%) 15,110
Email*
Telephony** Demand
Resolve at first point of contact
B – 3%
C – 45%
H – 52%
B – 37%
C – 27%
H – 36%
B – 50%
C – 50%
H – 0%
B – 13%
C – 27%
H – 60%
B – 22%
C – 35%
H – 43%
136,686
(Recorded)
9% total
Crimes
33,314
(Admin records)
2% total
Officer Gen
44,787 – 36%
3% of total
MoP
79,700 – 64%
5% of total
Officer Gen
16,657 – 50%
1% of total
MoP
16,657 – 50%
1% of total
B – 18%
C – 46%
H – 36%
B – 18%
C – 46%
H – 36%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Beds Cambs Herts0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Beds Cambs Herts
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Beds Cambs Herts
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Beds Cambs Herts
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Beds Cambs Herts0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Beds Cambs Herts
Key
Beds
Cambs
Herts
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Beds Cambs Herts
Variance
(12,199)****
60
Submission Draft
Understand TOM demand
Submission Draft
Approach
62
Each bucket of demand is reapportioned to the relevant demand categories within the IMU. This was done using different logic and data
sources, explained below:
• Resolution Team – In order to calculate the demand that is suitable to move to a Resolution Team, we conducted a dip sample
exercise. A representative sample of incidents was chosen and members of the Design Team were asked to state whether they
believe the specific incident could have been resolved to a Resolution Team. We then applied the proportions from the sample to the
total demand to calculate the percentage of each demand bucket (No Attendance, Scheduled, Appointment, Prompt, Immediate) that
could be transferred to a Resolution Team
• “Athena 30” – We were provided by the Athena Team with a list of Non Crimes descriptions that will need to be input on Athena in
the new environment. As a result, we cross referenced this list against STORM incident descriptions to identify the STORM incidents
that will need to go onto Athena. We then filtered this list by Grading to give an indication of the percentage of each demand bucket
that would need to go on Athena as part of the Athena 30.
• Athena 30: Fast – relates to the incidents that need to go on Athena that have come from Immediate or Prompt grading
• Athena 30: Slow – relates to the incidents that need to go on Athena that have come from Scheduled, Appointment or No
Attendance grading
• A further exercise was completed in order to re-evaluate the non-crime demand into the IMU. The objective of the exercise
was to reduce non-crime demand and to consider alternative handle times. Details are described on pages 70 and 71
• Athena Crime – Similarly to the previous exercise, we appreciate that all “Crimes” need to go on Athena, and therefore conducted
the same exercise with Crime Lead Oliver Johnston to identify the STORM incidents that would need to go onto Athena as a crime.
We then applied these incidents to the relevant grading to give a percentage
• Athena Crime: Fast – this appears as zero on the previous slide as the assumption is that these will go to the IMU as an
Officer Generated Crime Report
• Athena Crime: Slow – this relates to the incidents that need to go on Athena as a crime that have come from Scheduled,
Appointment or No Attendance grading
• Remain on STORM – The assumption is that if demand is not to go to an IMU (either Athena or Resolution Team), then it will remain
as a STORM incident
• Scheduled – Hertfordshire appointments are not counted in the data set as they were not using them at the time. Analysis by
Vanessa Lavell indicated an estimated number of appointments that Hertfordshire could expect over a one year period – these were
transferred from the Scheduled bucket to Appointments
Submission Draft
IMU Demand - Crimes
The next two slides will look at the types of demand going into an IMU. This slide considers
the Athena Crimes, while the next slide considers Athena “Non Crime” investigations
Officer Generated
(Indirect)
MOP Generated
(Direct)
As Is As Is
To Be To Be
Call
Attended
Emergency + Crime
In the current environment, an emergency
is recorded on STORM and an Officer
dispatched
Call
STORM
Emergency + Crime
tuServ
IMU
In the future, an emergency will be
dispatched to an Officer through STORM.
They will then update via tuServ and this
will go to the IMU to go onto Athena
Call
Slow Time Crime
Transfer to
Crime Team
Transfer
to CST
Record on
Solomon
Call
Slow Time Crime
Transfer to IMU
B C H
In the current
environment, a Non
Emergency Crime is
transferred to the relevant
Crime Team or input on
the correct system
In the To Be world, a
Slow Time Crime will be
transferred to the IMU
63
Submission Draft
IMU Demand – “Athena 30”
Officer Generated
(Indirect)
MOP Generated
(Direct)
As Is As Is
To Be To Be
Call
STORM
ASB Incident
Currently, an Anti Social Behaviour incident
would be logged on STORM
Call
STORM
tuServ
IMU
In the future, an ASB incident would go to
the Athena IMU. If it is an incident that an
Officer is required to attend, they will update
via tuServ and this will go to the IMU as an
Officer Generated Report
Call
ASB / Athena 30
Onward task
STORM
record
Call
ASB / Athena 30
Transfer to IMU
Currently, if a call comes
from the member of the
public relating to an ASB,
it is input on STORM and
onward tasked to relevant
part of Force
In the To Be world, where
the incident is an “Athena
30” incident, it will go
straight to the IMU
This slide looks at the change in process for the Investigations that will need to go on Athena,
as indicated by the Athena team
ASB Incident
64
Submission Draft
IMU Demand – Resolution Team
This slide considers what proportion of current STORM incidents could be resolved by a
Resolution Team in the Target Operating Model
In order to calculate the demand that is suitable to move to a Resolution Team, we conducted a dip sample exercise. A
representative sample of incidents was chosen (675 STORM incidents) and members of the Design Team were asked to
state whether they believe the specific incident could have been resolved to a Resolution Team. From the sample of 675
incidents, 72 were appropriate for a Resolution Team (11%)
We then applied the proportions from the sample to the total demand to calculate the percentage of each demand bucket
(No Attendance, Scheduled, Appointment, Prompt, Immediate) that could be transferred to a Resolution Team
Of the 141 Immediate
incidents in the sample, 0 were
suitable for a Resolution Team
Of the 230 Prompt incidents in
the sample, 44 were suitable
for a Resolution Team
Of the 70 Scheduled incidents
in the sample, 20 were suitable
for a Resolution Team
Of the 11 Appointment
incidents in the sample, 1 was
suitable for a Resolution Team
Of the 223 No Response
incidents in the sample, 6 were
suitable for a Resolution Team
To
tal S
am
ple
of 6
75
in
cid
en
ts
0% of Immediate go to Resolution Team
19% of Prompt go to Resolution Team
29% of Scheduled go to Resolution Team
9% of Appointments go to Resolution Team
3% of No Attend go to Resolution Team
Resolution Team
Total volume: 80,965
43% need to go on
Athena
57% pure Resolution
Team
Actual volume: 46,150
65
Submission Draft
Channel Shift application
The below details the Channel Shift rules applied – explaining to what demand this has been
applied
66
Demand typeChannel
ShiftReason Comments
FPOC Signposting 5% Webchat channel 5% of all FPOC Signposting demand expected to go through Webchat
FPOC Signposting 5% Static Content 5% of all FPOC Signposting demand expected to be reduced through Static
Content information
Other Police Matter 5% Track My Crime application This has only been applied to relevant aspects of Other Police Matter. 4% of
Other Police Matter relates to telephony crime updates and so 5% Channel
Shift has only been applied to the relevant 4% of Other Police Matter that
could shift to Track My Crime
STORM – No Further
Action
5% Online Crime Reporting 5% of all STORM – NFA demand expected to go through the online Crime
Reporting functionality
STORM – Appointment 5% Online Crime Reporting 5% of all STORM – Appointment demand expected to go through the online
Crime Reporting functionality
STORM – Scheduled 5% Online Crime Reporting 5% of all STORM – Scheduled demand expected to go through the online
Crime Reporting functionality
MOP Generated Crime 5% Online Crime Reporting 5% of all MOP Generated Crime Reports expected to go through the online
Crime Reporting functionality
Increased IVR realisation rate:
Beds currently has an IVR realisation rate of 14%, Cambs 5% and Herts 20%. IVR realisation rates for the three Forces are expected to
increase to a rate of 20% for BCH. For this reason, Herts demand will not change as a result.
IVR improvements have only been applied to relevant parts of the “Other Police Matter demand”. In order to calculate the IVR opportunity, we
determined the proportion of Other Police Matter demand relating to Out of Force Enquiry (4%), Specific Officer request (13%), Property
enquiry (3%) and Needed to be routed to another department (35%). This meant that the IVR opportunity for each Force was 55% of each
Force’s Other Police Matter demand.
On the basis that the three Forces already have some IVR success, we calculated the IVR realised volume at current success rates, and then
increased each Force to equate to the predicted 20% BCH IVR realisation rate.
Submission Draft
To Be Demand Diagram – 0% Channel Shift
Total – 1,594,000
Emergency
Prompt
115,726
Immediate
114,763
FPOC Resolution
Signpost
77,468
Other Police
Matter
397,662
STORM NFA
183,639
Scheduled
0
Appointment
40,493
Stage One
Direct demand
Recording and
Linking
Stage Two
QA / Linking /
Investigation
Stage Three
Ongoing Data
Management
Resolution Team
46,150
Resolved
46,150
Crime
94,313
Mandatory Allocation
45,270
Non Crime
71,333
Crime
42,373
Non Crime
41,507
File + Close
29,237
DBE
19,806
Resolved
9,903
Allocated
9,903
DBE
34,815
Resolved
34,815
Ongoing Data Mgmt
41,507
File + Close
17,373
Ongoing Data Mgmt
25,000
MOP Generated
91,691
Officer Generated
66,507
Crime
55,173
Non Crime
36,518
Crime
25,000
Non Crime
41,507
Allocated / Screen Out
36,518
Removed from Public Contact scope
per JCOB recommendations.
Submission Draft
To Be Demand Diagram – 5% Channel Shift
Total – 1,539,176
Emergency
Prompt
115,726
Immediate
114,763
FPOC Resolution
Signpost
77,468
Other Police
Matter
379,545
STORM NFA
174,457
Scheduled
0
Appointment
39,175
Stage One
Direct demand
Recording and
Linking
Stage Two
QA / Linking /
Investigation
Stage Three
Ongoing Data
Management
Resolution Team
44,282
Resolved
44,282
Crime
94,313
Mandatory Allocation
45,270
Non Crime
68,476
Crime
42,373
Non Crime
41,507
File + Close
29,237
DBE
19,806
Resolved
9,903
Allocated
9,903
DBE
33,406
Resolved
33,406
Ongoing Data Mgmt
41,507
File + Close
17,373
Ongoing Data Mgmt
25,000
MOP Generated
90,244
Officer Generated
66,507
Crime
55,173
Non Crime
35,071
Crime
25,000
Non Crime
41,507
Allocated / Screen Out
35,071
Removed from Public Contact scope
per JCOB recommendations.
Submission Draft
Opportunity 1 & 2 – reduce demand
69
FBC baseline demand for Athena IMU
362,154 (crime and non crime records)
Adjusted baseline of Athena IMU
306,346
The initial baseline included all STORM
records that matched an Athena 30
description. Further assessment with the
Athena team identified demand that can
be removed which are over inflating the
baseline demand, including the reduction
of Concern for Welfare and some
Malicious/Nuisance calls
IMU with removal of Optional Athena 30
249,526
Once the adjusted baseline was established, a further set
of demand was identified where recording on Athena is
Optional
1. Suspicious incidents
2. ASB Environment (with personal and
Baseline IMU Adjusted Baseline IMU after removal of Optional % Change
Crime 136,686 136,686 136,686 0%
Non Crime 225,468 169,660 112,840 50%
Total 362,154 306,346 249,526 31%
Reduction of 50% in non-crime demand
Submission Draft
Scenario One Scenario Two
Demand type Process step
handle time
81% of
demand
18% of
demand
1% of
demand
81% of
demand
18% of
demand
1% of
demand
MOP Generated
Crime
Recording 20 mins 20 mins 20 mins 20 mins 20 mins 20 mins
Linking 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins
Total handle time 25 mins 27 mins 30 mins 25 mins 27 mins 30 mins
MOP Gen Non
Crime
Recording 10 mins 12 mins 13 mins 15 mins 17 mins 20 mins
Linking 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins
Total handle time 15 mins 19 mins 23 mins 20 mins 24 mins 30 mins
Officer Gen Crime QA 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins
Linking 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins
Total handle time 10 mins 12 mins 15 mins 10 mins 12 mins 15 mins
Officer Gen Non
Crime
QA 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins 5 mins
Linking 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins 5 mins 7 mins 10 mins
Total handle time 10 mins 12 mins 15 mins 10 mins 12 mins 15 mins
Opportunity 3 – reduce handle time
70
Two scenarios have been modelled for handling time, which includes the time to record and link an investigation on Athena.
Both scenarios will model with the following assumptions:
AHTs have been reduced in line with current test data from Norfolk and Suffolk who have indicated that certain crimes take a shorter amount of time to
link than others. The data indicates that of the total number of crimes linked: 81% takes 5 min, 18% takes 7 min and 1% takes 10min. When compared
to the current BCH assumption of 10 min for linking, this will result in a reduction in handle time. Furthermore, it is assumed that a reduction in linking
may indicate a reduction in recording time as less POLE data is recording in the first place. However it is noted that the reduction in recording time is not
proportionate. Crime recording times have been retained at 20 min as these meet the current BCH recording benchmarks, however linking times have
been reduced.
Scenario 2 tests a further reduction in recording time for non-crime. This time is not based on detailed process analysis and is selected to provide a
minimum level of recording for cost comparison, however this has not been validated and non-crime recording might take longer subject to the Athena
data requirements. The difference between scenario one and scenario two is the recording time for non –crime investigations
The current handle times are 30 minutes for MOP Generated Crimes and Non Crimes (20 mins recording, 10 mins linking), and 20 minutes for Officer
Generated (10min QA, 10 min linking)
Submission Draft
The new handle time – underlying principles Handle times across the three forces currently differ due to a number of process and operational differences. The TOM will recommend a number of new processes
and functional configurations that will result in a change in handle time. A number of principles are required in order to define new handle times
The handle time of a contact is based on the time taken to communicate with the member of the public in order to:
1. Ascertain the service needed or confirm that the citizens view of the service required is in fact the most appropriate response (what is the nature of the enquiry)
2. Complete a risk assessment in order to decide on the most appropriate course of action. The TOM will be based on THRIIVES as the core decision making
model, however the National Decision Model sets out the standard approach in which THRIIVES will be applied. THE NDM also recognises that it is not always
possible to segregate thinking or response out to each stage of a decisioning model and therefore the main objective is to act with integrity and protect and serve
the public. The TOM therefore recognises that a full THRIIVES might not be applied when assessing and emergency contact.
3. Hand the contact over to the most appropriate team to provide further service when required
Once the contact / communication part is completed, the call handler will be required to complete any notes or post call activities to
1. Provide a record of the decisioning process.
• A significant portion of after call work can increase total handle time resulting in an increase in resources required to meet demand. There TOM is based on
a greater degree of control of the call that will allow the call operator to manage the call and notes concurrently, with a shorter period of wrap time to review
the log notes and finalise.
2. Set any further tasks that may be required.
• This type of activity is limited in the future model, allowing call handlers to operate and be more available their primary purpose, managing contact from the
public
Predicting future handle times (based on current handle times)
• The TOM must deliver operational efficiencies and handle times will need to be within an agreed current range based on the process steps described
above. Bedfordshire has implemented THRIIVES and noticed a significant increase in handle time to almost 10 minutes. It is recognised that operators were
not applying THRIIVES in a flexible manner and were following the process in the strictest application. An adjustment to the process has reduced handle
time back to within a the 5 to 6 min range. This provides a useful benchmark to apply to determine a target handle time that effectively applies THRIIVES
in the TOM
• Handle times must reflect time spent on system updates
As the Beds experience indicates, there will be an initial increase in handle time as operators adapt to changes. It is expected that the handle times will not
increase to the same extent at Beds and operational testing should be used to confirm this assumption. Additionally as the increase is temporary an uplift in
FTE will not be considered and operational review processes will be in place to manage to expected SLA’s. The integrity of 999 services will be retained.
71
Submission Draft
The new handle time – underlying principles
72
Talk time Wrap time
Identify / confirm service need:
1. Emergency (incident or crime)
2. Non- emergency (incident or crime)
3. Signposting / advice / information
4. THRIIVES is the basis for the decisioning framework,
providing a customised service for each contact type
5. THRIIVES is applied flexibly to expedite emergency
contact
1. Call logs are captured during talk time
reducing inefficiencies
2. Wrap time is used to QA/ review notes
on logs with decision outcomes
3. Initiate post contact processes
Confirm /
identify need
for service
or
Information /
advice/
signposting
Possible
emergency
Non –
emergency
service
Contact
received
or
Provide information /
signposting /
advice
Apply THRIIVES framework to
determine if emergency or prompt
attendance is required. Initial
questions can identify the need for
attendance quickly within the
framework
If the need for emergency attendance is not
immediately identified, the operator will continue
to apply THRIIVES to determine the most
appropriate action required. This could include
attendance using an appointment
After call
work
After call work
After call work
AHT
AHT
AHT
Shorter call lengths for triage and re-routing calls
Emergency calls are quicker than non-emergency
Call handle time is lengthier than non-emergency as more of THRIIVES process is applied
Submission Draft
The application of THRIIVES in the TOM and implications for
handle times
73
Confirm
services
needed
THRIIVES considered within
stage 2 of NDM (assess
situation)
Possible outcome Impact on call length
What
When
Where
Who
Request for information /
signposting
Advice / signposting given, and no further action
required
Shorter calls where need is identified
and service provided quickly
Threat
Attendance: immediate, priority ,
Threat, risk and harm identified to
support deployment decision. Other
aspects of THRIIVES continue but
main consideration is attendance Harm
Risk
Investigation Non –emergency: attendance via appointment or
transfer IMU for recording, assessment, resolution/
screening or further allocation
Longer calls, where no immediate
threat, risk or harm are identified to
consider Vulnerability
Engagement
THRIIVES is a decision making model, designed to help Public Contact staff make a balanced deployment and allocation decision based on the actual
circumstances of a specific incident rather than based on standard deployment policies. All 6 THRIIVES considerations fit into the stage 2 of the NDM
– Assess Situation
Embedding THRIIVES into the TOM will:
• Begin the process of tailored victim service at earliest point of contact
• Improve the identification and reduction of threat, harm and risk to victims whilst maintaining investigative standards
• Allow call handlers to use their professional discretion via the application of the National Decision Making Model and THRIIVES
• Advance the grading profile of the force by responding to incidents in a more effective manner e.g. by correct grading and managed appointments
• Have a positive impact on the ‘Victims First’ culture of dealing with calls for service
It is important to note that THRIIVES doesn’t have to be done in a specific order of letters or include all THRIIVES letters, providing the flexibility
needed to deliver services within a suitable time to meet risk objectives (emergency contact is quickly identified and deployed to) and without inflating
call handle times due to unnecessary process bureaucracy.
Submission Draft
Current average handle times and implications for future AHTThe current AHT for each Force provides a starting point to evaluate current working practices. Detailed call handling and wrap times
for the current demand of 1.59 million calls would be the most detailed way to assess current handle times, however each Force does
not record and / or retain this information. Therefore the AHT for each Force will be used to inform the approach to determine handle
times in the TOM. This approach is limited as it does not consider very short handle times or very lengthy handle times, but is an
contact management accepted practice when detailed data is unavailable.
74
Beds Cambs Herts*
999 101 999 101 999 101
Talk time 03:08 02:57 02:58 06:18 03:02 03:52
Wrap 02:38 02:41 01:58 06:42 02:01 01:38
Total AHT 05:46 05:38 04:56 13:00 5:03 5:30
Initial observations around handle times
• The AHT’s below are for comparable 999 and 101 services
• Beds and Herts have similar handle times for both 999 and 101 calls
• Beds have recently implemented changes to the call handling process
to include additional questions sets, this has increased the AHT to a
more comparable rate
• Cambs 101 AHT time is at the highest level of 13 min
A number of differences in ways of working and operational procedure
may indicate why AHT differs in the Cambridgeshire PSC. Factors could
include:
• Process differences in terms of call queuing strategy of calls
• Historic emphasis on crime recording rather than immediate response
skills
• Only constabulary where 101 call handlers are not multi-skilled to
also answer 999 calls
The following principles will underpin the development of AHTs for the
TOM
• The AHT for the 3 Forces present a floor (lowest handle time) and
ceiling (highest handle time) within the range of possible handle
times. While a specific handle time cannot be determined, an AHT
can be selected within this range which represents the current
effective operating handle times for the Forces. As Cambs 101 is a
distinct outlier, the AHT for future modelling will be no higher than the
ceiling of 05.38 and will also demonstrate a reduction due to process
improvements
• Standardised operating processes will reduce wrap times. This will
result in a reduction in handle time for Cambs 101 calls delivering
efficiencies in the TOM
• Not all call types will require the same handle time and a further
distinction will be made to model different handle times providing
further savings
1. Short calls: sign posting and triage: 1 to 2 min
2. Non-emergency calls (with further THRIIVEs) process:
below the current non-emergency ceiling
3. Emergency calls (with THRIIVEs to establish emergency):
below the current ceiling
* Annual Herts data is unavailable and the AHT is for the period March 2015 to April
2015. Annual data does not split down talk time from wrap time, but both 999 and 101
calls show AHT of 05:37
Submission Draft
IMU
Demand and AHTs – 0% Channel Shift
Call
Emergency
270,980
5min 17sec
Appointment
40,493
5minSignposting
77,468
2min
Other Police Matter
397,662
1min
Resolution Team
46,150
25min
MOP Gen Crime
94,313
30min
MOP Gen Mandatory Athena
71,333
30min
**Direct: provide more
info
117,628
10min
**Officer Generated Crime
42,373
20min
**Indirect Athena Investigations
41,507
20min
Indirect: request
update
Direct to Officer
Indirect: provide
more info
Direct to Officer
Triage: 83,880 - 1min Triage: 70,744 - 1min
Triage: 71,333 - 4min Triage: 165,646 – 1min Triage: 91,691 - 1minTriage: 94,313 - 4min
Indirect Demand
Indirect Demand
Triage: 46,150 - 5min
Direct: request update
165,646
2min
DBE - Crime
19,806
25min (Dedicated)
20min (Within IMU CH)
DBE – Non Crime
34,815
25min
**Ongoing Athena
Investigations
158,198
10min
STORM NFA
183,639
2min
Allocations
53,640
5min
Outcomes
97,546
5min
**This demand has been removed from IMU scope
per JCOB recommendations.
It should be noted that AHTs stated may increase
in reality when managed by Local Policing
Submission Draft
Prepare data for Workforce Planning Tool
76
Submission Draft
Demand Groupings
Call Handling
Call Handling triage – total volume – 482,776
Q1 – Emergency 270,980
Q4 – Resolution Team Triage 46,150
Q13 – Direct MOP Generated Crime Triage 94,313
Q15 – Direct MOP Generated Mandatory
Athena triage71,333
Call Handling FPOC resolution – 699,262
Q2 – STORM NFA 183,639
Q3 – STORM Appointment 40,493
Q6 – STORM Signposting 77,468
Q12.1 – Other Police Matter 397,662
Call Handling update triage – 411,961
Q7 – Direct request for update triage 165,646
Q9 – Direct provide more info triage 91,691
Q11 – Indirect request for update triage 83,880
Q12 – Indirect provide more info triage 70,744
IMU
IMU main functions – 528,628
Q5 – Resolution Team 46,150
Q8 – Direct request for update 165,646
Q10 – Direct provide more info Out of scope
Q14 – Direct MOP Generated Crime 94,313
Q16 – Direct MOP Generated Mandatory
Athena71,333
Q17 – Indirect Officer Generated Crime Out of scope
Q18 – Indirect Officer Generated Mandatory
AthenaOut of scope
Q22 – Allocations 53,640
Q23 - Outcomes 97,546
DBE and Ongoing Investigation – 54,621
Q19 – DBE Crime 19,806
Q20 – DBE Non Crime 34,815
Q21 – Ongoing Investigation Out of scope
Submission Draft
Types of demand
78
Type Description Volume 0% Volume 5% AHT
Q1 – Emergency Emergency demand – unaffected by Channel Shift 270,980 270,980 5min 17sec
Q2 – STORM NFA Demand that remains on STORM with No Further Action necessary 183,639 174,457 4min
Q3 – Appointment Demand that remains on STORM, requiring an Appointment 40,493 39,175 5min
Q4 – Resolution Team Triage Call handling triage process for demand that goes to the Resolution Team 46,150 44,282 5min
Q5 – Resolution Team Actual process within the Resolution Team of attempting to resolve the incident 46,150 44,282 25min
Q6 – NFA Signposting Demand that is signposting and advice at First Point of Contact 77,468 69,722 2min
Q7 – Direct: request for update triage Call handling triage process for MOP calling to request an update on their crime or incident 165,646 158,074 1min
Q8 – Direct: request for update Actual process of MOP receiving an update on their issue 165,646 158,074 2min
Q9 – Direct: provide more info triage Call handling triage process for MOP calling to provide further information 91,961 90,244 1min
Q10 – Direct: provide more info Out of scope for Public Contact, this will now be conducted by Local Policing. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing. 91,961 90,244 10min
Q11 – Indirect: request for update triage Call handling triage process of MOP calling to get an update on an Officer Generated incident or crime 83,880 83,880 1min
Q12 – Indirect: provide more info triage Call handling triage process of MOP calling to provide more info on an Officer Generated incident or crime 70,744 70,744 1min
Q12.1 – Other Police Matter Call handling process for calls resolved at point of contact that relate to Other Police Matters. These do not include calls wishing to update or
provide more information
397,662 379,545 1min
Q13 – Direct: MOP Gen Crime triage Call handling triage process for MOP calling to report a crime 94,313 89,598 4min
Q14.1 – Direct: MOP Gen Crime – 81% 81% of demand for actual IMU process of recording a crime reported by a MOP 76,394 72,574 25min
Q14.2 – Direct: MOP Gen Crime – 18% 18% of demand for actual IMU process of recording a crime reported by a MOP 16,976 16,128 27min
Q14.3 – Direct: MOP Gen Crime – 1% 1% of demand for actual IMU process of recording a crime reported by a MOP 943 896 30min
Q15 – Direct: MOP Gen Mandatory Athena triage Call handling triage process for MOP calling to report an incident that would need to be entered on Athena 71,333 68,476 4min
Q16.1 – Direct: MOP Gen Mandatory Athena – 81% 81% of demand for IMU process of recording the MOP generated incident that needs to go on Athena 57,780 55,466 20min
Q16.2 – Direct MOP Gen Mandatory Athena – 18% 18% of demand for IMU process of recording the MOP generated incident that needs to go on Athena 12,840 12,326 24min
Q16.3 – Direct MOP Gen Mandatory Athena – 1% 1% of demand for IMU process of recording the MOP generated incident that needs to go on Athena 713 685 30min
Q17.1 – Indirect: Officer Gen Crime – 81% 81% of QA and Linking for Off Gen Crime – out of scope for Public Contact. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing 34,322 34,322 10min
Q17.2 – Indirect: Officer Gen Crime – 18% 18% of QA and Linking for Off Gen Crime – out of scope for Public Contact. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing. 7,627 7,627 12min
Q17.3 – Indirect Officer Gen Crime – 1% 1% of QA and Linking for Off Gen Crime – out of scope for Public Contact. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing. 424 424 15min
Q18 – Indirect: Officer Gen Mand. Athena – 81% 81% of QA and Linking for Off Gen Non Crime – out of scope for Public Contact. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing 33,621 33,621 10min
Q18.2 – Indirect: Officer Gen Mand. Athena – 18% 18% of QA and Linking for Off Gen Non Crime – out of scope for Public Contact. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing. 7,471 7,471 12min
Q18.3 – Indirect: Officer Gen Mand. Athena – 1% 1% of QA and Linking for Off Gen Non Crime – out of scope for Public Contact. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing. 415 415 15min
Q19 – DBE Dedicated Team Desk Based Enquiries for the appropriate crimes within a dedicated DBE team 19,806 19,806 25min
Q20 – Non Crime DBE Desk Based Enquiries for Non Crime investigations by a dedicated DBE team 34,815 34,815 25min
Q21 – Ongoing Athena Investigations Linking of Ongoing Athena Investigations – out of scope for Public Contact. Note: AHT may not be accurate for Local Policing 158,198 156,751 10min
Q22 – Allocations Allocations to Local Policing teams or Specialist teams – conducted within the IMU 53,640 53,640 5min
Q23 - Outcomes Confirmation of Outcome management conducted within the IMU 97,546 97,546 5min
Submission Draft
Approach to defining the To – Be demand profileThe demand funnel across BCH manages 4 key types of the demand
1. Emergency responses (Immediate and prompt)
2. Scheduled and appointment responses (we need to attend but not as a prompt)
3. Requires the recording of an incident or crime report and may result in further activity required
4. Can be resolved on the phone with no further action (FPOC)
We have described the current annual demand profile based on historical data to understand how the demand profile will change in the
future model. Two key changes to the model will shift demand:
1. More non-emergency and low risk incidents will resolved through the IMU resolution process, to reduce the number of unnecessary
deployments. This will change the demand profile across immediate, prompt and scheduled attendance
2. More non-emergency and low risk incidents will be managed through an appointment, providing the citizen with a better experience
based on more certainty around attendance times
There are over 700 000 data records across Storm and Crime systems and we have selected a representative sample to assess the
following across all incidents
1. Could the incident be resolved by the IMU through telephony resolution?
− We have sampled 670 Storm incidents, of which 11% can be resolved through telephony resolution. This was ascertained
by applying THRIIVES
− This sample was taken across all Storm grades. This demonstrates that a proportion of demand will change across all
grades providing the to-be demand profile, based on applying THRIIVES and ascertaining scope for telephony resolution
2. Could the incident be serviced by an appointment?
− Exercise is progress
Understanding the impact of Athena - All crimes and a number of Storm Incidents will be recorded on Athena in the future. This will result
in an increase in handle time based on new Athena data recording and linking protocols. The demand profile will also change as a
result of an uplift in handle time.
The new demand profile will therefore be based on the shift of more incidents to a central team for resolution and for recording and
investigations.
79
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
Appendix 2 – Glossary of Terms
80
Submission Draft
Appendix 3: Glossary of Terms
Key definitions Terminology Definition
PC Public Contact – Beds, Cambs and Herts call handling, control room and crime recording functions.
FPOC Resolution at first point of contact. This combines signposting and advice.
TOM Target Operating Model – A framework that drives considerations when designing the future way of working.
Storm The command and control computer system used by tri-force FCR’s to log incident details taken from public, police or partner
agency contact, using current and historical data to risk assess the appropriate response.
Storm incidents All incidents which need to be captured for further resolution, which are not captured on Athena.
FTE Full Time Equivalent – The hours worked by one employee on a full time basis. Calculated as 8 hours per day x 5 work days per
week.
FCR Force Control Room – Central resource dispatch centre including call handling.
Oscar 1 ‘As Is’ Force Control Room Inspector – Manages critical and firearms incidents, line manager responsibility to FCR Supervisors
plus overall responsibility for management of the Room when on duty.
FDO Force Duty Officer – ‘To Be’ Control room Inspector dedicated to the management of critical and firearms incidents.
ICCS Integrated Communications and Control Systems – Dispatch and call handling system used within control rooms.
PSC Cambridgeshire Constabularies Police Service Centre – 101 call handing including the initial recording of crime.
CMSii Bedfordshire Police crime recording system.
CB Bedfordshire Police Crime Bureau – Recording of all crime including file, allocate decisions.
Hertfordshire Crime Bureau – Process crimes recorded by the FCR ensuring compliance and convert to Herts crime system.
81
Submission Draft
Appendix 3: Glossary of Terms
Key definitions Terminology Definition
CST Crime Service Team – Complete desk top investigation of crime reports.
Crime Admin A crime management administration function.
VST Hertfordshire Constabularies Victim Service Team – Review and allocation of crime along with victim updates.
IVR Interactive Voice Response system - A triage system for call handling.
CMS/CRM Customer Management System/Customer Relationship management – Allows agents to view customer details recorded from
previous contact.
Agents Call handlers, Dispatchers, and IMU staff.
Aggregated search A centralised search of all tri-force legacy systems.
AHT Average Handling Times – Call taking.
MOP Member of the public.
IMU Investigation Management Unit – Focus on Athena investigations along with incident resolution.
Athena A collaborated system allowing a ‘one stop’ search of intelligence, investigation management, custody data, public protection,
case preparation and digital data.
Athena AMO Athena Management Organisation – A group representing all 7 Athena forces to ensure compliance and authorisation of
changes and upgrades.
POLE data People, Objects, locations and Events data system – these details are added to Athena and linked to each other to allow for
Athena searches.
Athena Investigations All ‘crimes’ and ‘non-crimes’ to be recorded on Athena, as required by Athena AMO. The treatment of these is assumed to be
consistent both in the context of high-level process followed and average handle times.
82
Submission Draft
Appendix 3: Glossary of Terms
Key definitions Terminology Definition
DBE Initial desktop enquiries that allow the crime recorder to establish whether or not there are any further lines of enquiry on that
crime report. This will then influence a decision as to whether the report should be allocated or finalised.
Desktop enquiries within Public Contact will only go so far as to enable the crime recorder to make a decision as to whether the
crime report should be allocated or finalised.
Indirect demand –
Officer generated
Demand coming into the IMU as a result of records generated by officers, where there will be a requirement to complete QA
and secondary linking.
Indirect demand –
Investigations support
Demand coming into the IMU to process work, which directly enables the management of Athena investigations. Investigations
support includes, but is not limited to administration of: Checkmend, Pentip, Outcomes, and BOSS, where the extent to which
these processes are in / out of scope may change
Indirect demand – 3rd
party demand
Demand created by Athena records from non-Public Contact areas which require secondary linking and QA. In some cases
Athena reports may need to be updated, for example by completing risk assessments. This includes demand from: Rural
Operational Support Team, Schools Unit, and Mental Health.
IRC/Resolution Team Incident resolution centre/Resolution Team – Aim to resolve Storm incidents over the phone to prevent unnecessary
deployment of a resource.
Partner agencies Blue light services or other investigating bodies that we share information with such as councils, bank fraud departments etc.
TuServ A mobile application to enable officers to access all relevant data systems from a single point, removing a dependency on
paper-based systems. Running on both mobile phones and tablet computers, officers can be equipped with the most
appropriate device without sacrificing functionality. An officer has access to all the information in one go, accessing numerous
databases instantaneously.
NCRS National Crime Recording Standards – standards central to Home Office Counting Rules that are consistently applied across all
forces in order to produce accurate statistics.
HOCR Home Office Counting Rules – Victim orientated guidance for the recording, classification, investigation and detection of crime.
NSIR National Standards of Incident recording – Guidance and definitions for incident recording and risk assessment at the front end
of service delivery.
83
Submission DraftSubmission Draft
Appendix 3 – List of Detailed Design
Workpackages
84
Submission Draft
Detailed Workpackages
85
Target Operating Layer Detailed Workpackage Description Key Owner
Customers and
Citizens Customer Groups & Treatment Principles – Detailed excel spreadsheet covering all key groups of external customers and
services provided to them.
Vanessa Lavell
Channels
Demand Model – Excel model used to estimate volume and type of demand which each function will need to process in the
future TOMPhilip Eaton
Demand Assumptions – Key assumptions used to underpin demand modelling and calculations Philip Eaton
Services
Service Catalogue - Detailed excel spreadsheet covering all key groups of external customers and services provided to
them. Word documents “Recommendations for internal interactions” and “Recommendations for interactions with foreign
forces” provides recommendations for types of services to be provided
Vanessa Lavell
STORM Incident Resolution Review– A representative sample of incidents was chosen (675 STORM incidents) and
members of the Design Team were asked to state whether they believe the specific incident could have been resolved to a
Resolution Team without attendance.
Design Team
STORM Incident Appointment Review - . A representative sample of incidents was chosen (675 STORM incidents) and
members of the Design Team were asked to state whether they believe the specific incident could have been resolved
through an appointment.
Design Team
Performance Framework
Performance Framework Approach – Presentation to agree balanced scorecard approach with strategic, operational and
tactical reporting levels at JCOB levelDeloitte
Balanced Scorecard Template – Template as part of presentation on overall reporting approach
Deloitte & Design
Team
KPIs & SLAs Call Handling – Spreadsheet detailing KPIs and SLAs which would need to be measured for the future call
handling process. Design Team
KPIs & SLAs Dispatch – Spreadsheet detailed KPIs and SLAs which would need to be measured for the future Dispatch
process. Design Team
KPIs & SLAs Crime - Spreadsheet detailed KPIs and SLAs which would need to be measured for the future Crime recording
and crime support process. N.B. Design Team
The high level summary of the design and demand work set out in this document, is based directly on more detailed work
conducted by the Programme Design Team. The work outlined below represents key work packages tasked to the Design
Team but is not considered an exhaustive list. It does not include key decision papers or further work done to advance the
Full Business case outside of the Target Operating Model layers.
Submission Draft
Detailed Workpackages
86
Target Operating Layer Detailed Workpackage Description Key Owner
Processes
Level 1 and 2 Visio Process Catalogue – Collated catalogue of all Level 2 processes designed for the future TOM. This
covers: Call Handling, Dispatch, Forensic Deployment, Appointments, IMU process, Athena Recording Process, Officer
Gen Report Athena Recording, Athena Support process, Resolution process, Abandoned Call Process,
Design Team
Appointments Scope – Excel detailing appointment type and uses Kath O’Brian
IRC Scope Definition – Excel detailing in-scope and out of scope activity for the IRC/IRC. Process map to re-design IRC as
a function integrated in the IMU Jim Howe, Kath
O’Brian
FDU Paper – Paper proposing the re-organisation of the FDU, to be absorbed into the Dispatch function Jim Howe,
Kristina Nielsen
DBI v DBE Paper Oliver Johnston
THRIIVES Questions & Systems – Detailed spreadsheet to show key questions asked and information required at each of
the THRIIVES steps. Also indicates source of this information (e.g. MOP or system Kath O’Brian
Digital Management Scope – Processes and tasks which would be in or out of scope for a Digital Manager Design Team
Admin Scope Excel definition – Scope of all tasks which would be performed by the Admin function Vanessa Lavell
RMU Scope Excel definition – Scope of tasks performed by the Resource Management Unit Mark Williams
Intel Paper – Paper proposing a redesign of the Intel/ Researcher function in the future TOM Vanessa Lavell
BCH Process Mapping Approach – HL guide to approach to process mapping, to ensure consistent ways of working Deloitte
Information
Communication
Technology
Full ICT Requirements Catalogue – Catalogue of detailed requirements requested from the ICT solution. N.B. Further
detailed requirements to be submitted as part of the detailed design phase. Design Team
Public Contact Vision & Design Principles – Summary of vision, approach and design principled to be ahead to for the ICT
design Design & ICT
workstreams
Innovation Presentation and Workshop Material – Presentation exploring scope for innovation in future TOM Deloitte & Design
Team
People
HR Requirements Spreadsheet – spreadsheet detailing skills, shift pattern, working hours and multi-skilling requirements
for each role and functionDesign Team
FCR & CST Role Profiles – As is role analysis showing key tasks and effort of all roles across BCH FCR and Crime
functionsAlison Farrell &
Kristina Nielsen
Organisation Org Design - work included in the TOM summary Design Team
Physical Site Talk Group Configuration Paper – Paper detailing options for talk-group configuration John Nelms
Location and Resilience requirements included in this pack – Paper detailing design of resilience and fall back John Nelms
