With mobile technologies opening up new ways of on-the-move working, organisations everywhere are trying to figure out how – or even, whether – to incorporate a burgeoning range of mobile devices into the workplace.
When that workplace is policing and border patrol services, the cases are perhaps, more unusual.
Still, the overall process is surprisingly similar to what any typical business goes through to make sure there’s a good argument to use the technology in the first place, and keep it in productive use once a “honeymoon period” of worker excitement wears off.
That’s according to two UK members of an EU working group called e-MOBIDIG, which considers the use of mobile technologies in border patrol and immigration work.
It's a controversial area that law enforcement says promises a better, more secure and sensitive service, but is under watch by civil rights advocate organisations such as UK-based Statewatch, concerned at potential privacy compromises and "function creep" in how such devices are used.
Dublin meeting
Visiting Dublin recently for an e-MOBIDIG meeting held here as part of Ireland's EU presidency, Frank Smith, chair of e-MOBIDIG and deputy director of the mobile section of the recently dissolved UK Border Agency, and Supt Cleaven Faulkner of Hampshire Police, discussed how mobile technologies are gradually being brought into immigration and police work.
Ironically, though, on the day the two were visiting, UK home secretary Theresa May told MPs that the UK Border Agency's "performance was not good enough" and that its duties would return to the Home Office, a shift that would not alter the basics of the argument for good mobile strategy, said Smith.
The two law enforcement figures argue that mobile technologies can bring cost savings and efficiency gains, while also improving operations and interactions with the public.
Speaking recently at the Institute for Irish and European Affairs (IIEA) in Dublin, they outlined the need to figure out an effective mobile strategy first, before deploying new technologies.
Smith says the starting point is very much the overall business issues – not whether to use one smartphone rather than another. "How do we maximise the business benefit that we get from this technology? How do you join together different initiatives so you join together the strategic approach for the corporate aims of the enterprise? You can't implement whole strategic solutions in one hit, it takes a while to build that, and to have the foresight to know what you need to put in place."
Important questions
Once the decision is made to bring in new technologies, "all of that technology is no good if the business doesn't use it well, if the managers aren't on board, and they're not making sure it is used effectively. These are the important questions, not the type of phone you have in your pocket."
As with any business, law enforcement agencies should go through a “maturity model” to decide how to bring in mobile technologies, first assessing what they should be doing and if there’s an advantage to using new technologies. This progresses through to trying out some actual technologies, and finally, working out a full business strategy.
There are many tactical arguments for using mobile devices, Smith says, for tasks such as document checks on passports, where an embedded chip in the passport can be verified; accessing complex central records systems with a larger-screen tablet; or using a fingerprint checking device that uses special access control codes.
The right approach is “device agnostic”, as sometimes a small device that fits in a pocket is all that is needed, while other officers might need a multifunctional, larger device.
But infrastructure behind the devices is the truly essential piece of a mobile project, as devices need to typically access numerous services and databases.
As in any business, this requires setting up security at front end, such as a firewall, encryption, and authentication of all mobile devices.
He adds that it's actually the mundane bit – middleware – that is critical to a functioning mobile system, as it "breaks out requests to various systems, and packages them all back up again efficiently, so they can come back into the street on the device".
Fingerprinting in the field
As an example, he says if an officer in the field needs to take fingerprints from someone, a request from the device might go to the fingerprint division, bring back that information, then need to go into another system to get a correct name and date of birth, then look at case records for that biographic identity, and finally, bring that whole package back together, summarising the key points onto the mobile device.
“You won’t get all that if you bought a tactical device that just searches for fingerprints,” Smith notes.
On the security side, “the issue is not just the mobile device, but that you’ve opened up a portal to your critical network and have to be confident to a high degree of security, that it’s only your devices getting into that portal.”
Finally, he says, law enforcement organisations need to pilot a project and test how it works before making a commitment.
Most police services fail on these points. According to Faulkner, seconded to the former UKBA to oversee the business process change end of integrating mobile technologies: “One in four police forces were successful in mobile projects, out of a recent £50 million investment from government.
“Only one in four: and those one in four forces were successful because they looked at the processes and examined how they did things for the change benefit.”
Change needs to be aligned to the strategic objectives of the organisation.
"It's not simply about utilising a piece of mobile technology, and mobilising what you do already – the art is about looking at those processes, taking the opportunity to reflect on them, change them, alter them, and allow the mobile device to actually be the enabler for that change."
Cultural impact
Understanding the cultural impact of change is critical, he says, as assumptions about how new technologies will be accepted can be flawed.
Faulkner notes that it was the younger members of his force, not the older members, who had more difficulty with accepting mobile technologies.
“Management change needs to focus on the cross-sectional skills that people bring with them. The younger generation were more of a problematic issue for me than the older ones because the older ones said, ‘We should have had this 30 years ago.’ So of course they embraced the change really, really well.
“Whereas the younger ones, because of the government security and the fact that you have to authenticate in about 15 different ways before you’re ever let at the system, they got frustrated with it, because [when they use their own phones and PCs] they’re used to pressing a button and putting one set of passwords in, and they’re in and working.”
He says devices should be put out to a small control group first for testing and feedback. Introduce the devices all at once, and people will concentrate on frustrations, rather than fresh benefits.
“So it’s about making sure with a small select group that have a clear mandate about how you want to test the product. Once you’ve tested it and put it through its paces, you push a little bit further, but you manage the expectation of the user.”
Other challenges for a mobile project include tracking all the mobile devices and making sure they are being used, to ensure people don’t return to old ways of working after an initial “honeymoon period” with new technologies.
Finally, he cautions that organisations should build in ways of measuring performance, “to see how the business change process is linking to the strategy, how benefit is being derived out of the device”.
That’s useful when asking for further investment in new technology projects, he says.
Both hope new mobile projects will bring benefits to both law enforcement and the general public. But there are plenty of challenges in the area, not least because, as Smith concludes, “the technological boundaries and possibilities are always moving”.
