CRM at the Speed of Light: SoCiaL CRM StRategieS, tooLS, and teChniqueS foR engaging YouR CuStoMeRS in Software

Making Quick Response Code in Software CRM at the Speed of Light: SoCiaL CRM StRategieS, tooLS, and teChniqueS foR engaging YouR CuStoMeRS

recognized as a critical need by law enforcement across the country for some time Since crime doesn t recognize jurisdictional boundaries, law enforcement has long understood the need to share information, from intelligence information to being able to inform other jurisdictions of an unserved warrant Unfortunately, similar to the problem with communications systems, state and local agencies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in systems that addressed only their needs, creating stovepiped systems across the country A critical element of the problem is that these systems are often proprietary, making it difficult to integrate their existing systems so they can communicate Responding effectively to a catastrophic event, whether manmade (terrorist) or a natural disaster, takes a high degree of coordination among all public safety agencies In a large scale event, not only do local agencies need to coordinate among themselves, they need to coordinate on a statewide and regional basis Doing this effectively requires that multiple agencies share a common operating picture, sharing information and being able to communicate with one another This has proven to be difficult given that incident management systems have grown up in much the same way as communications and information systems, as fragmented and proprietary systems State and local agencies are increasingly required to implement national-level programs that they are often ill equipped to implement Programs such as the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Framework (NRF) developed by the Department of Homeland Security require a level of knowledge, capabilities, and training that often don t exist at the local level The same is true of issues such as critical infrastructure protection and cybersecurity State and local agencies generally do not have the infrastructure and expertise to conduct due diligence on new products and technologies (It is equally as difficult for vendors to get their products in front of public safety agencies in a cost-effective fashion) As a result, smaller agencies often do not get information on new products or processes in a timely fashion If they do, they often have to rely on the vendor who is attempting to sell them the product for their information clearly an inherent conflict of interest Finally, even if they can get the information they need, their small budgets often preclude them from procuring a new product A case in point is that of software-based products where high license fees preclude agencies from taking advantage of a new technology

While state and local public safety personnel are the boots on the ground, the so-called first responders (and first preventers) dealing with national-level issues, they often have little or no say on the policies and procedures that are established to deal with these issues At best, a limited number of state and local practitioners are consulted and asked for their input, often using the medium of temporary working groups or committees along with the occasionally advisory group While it is easy to blame the federal government for this, the reality is that the fragmented nature of public safety makes it very costly and time consuming to reach out to the larger community Regardless of who s at fault, the impact is the same the lack of input leads to a lack of effectiveness due to lack of involvement and buy-in from the public safety community While there are programs that are focused on actively engaging the state and local public safety community such as SAFECOM, the Global Criminal Justice Information Advisory Committee (Global), and the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center system (NLECTC), even they have limited success One of the main reasons for this is that the method used to get this input is often too expensive to maintain on both sides It is costly to bring significant numbers of practitioners together to discuss any issue On the one hand, efforts to bring state and local practitioners to the table require paying for their travel and per diem expenses On the other hand, even if all expenses are paid, it is often too costly to the local department to have their personnel out of the rotation for a period of two or three days One result of this is that, despite best efforts, these programs have ended up relying on a limited number of practitioners often finding themselves talking to the same people over and over again In effect, the system has created a semiprofessional class of a limited number of subject matter experts who shuttle between projects, leaving the majority of public safety disenfranchised