Strategic Management

I s

P a

b

a

A

K I P I S

1

a c s f o t

s g i t r m

2

t s d t s b

p

0 d

International Journal of Information Management 30 (2010) 343–349

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i j i n f o m g t

nformation management in law enforcement: The case of police intelligence trategy implementation

eter Bell a, Geoff Dean a, Petter Gottschalk b,∗

School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia Norwegian School of Management, Nydalsveien 37, N-0442 Oslo, Norway

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:

a b s t r a c t

Strategy implementation is important because failure to carry out strategy can cause lost opportunities

eywords: ntelligence information olicing

and leave police officers reluctant to do strategic planning. Lack of implementation creates problems in maintaining priorities and reaching organizational goals. The strategy execution task is commonly the most complicated and time-consuming part of strategic, management. Yet, strategy implementation suffers from a general lack of academic attention. This research paper makes a contribution to police strategy implementation literature by developing a, research model to study the extent of intelligence

.

mplementation determinants trategic planning

strategy implementation

. Introduction

Strategy implementation suffers from a general lack of academic ttention. Despite the importance of the strategy execution pro- ess, much more attention is paid to strategy formulation than trategy implementation. As one of several reasons put forward or this discrepancy, Atkinson (2006) suggests that researchers ften underestimate the difficulties involved in studying such a opic.

In May 2007, the Norwegian Police Directorate concluded a trategy process with the document ‘National Strategy for Intelli- ence and Analysis’. According to the document, all police districts n Norway had to implement the strategy (POD, 2007). This is he implementation case to be studied in this research paper. Our esearch question might be formulated as follows: What are deter- inants of law enforcement strategy implementation?

. The concept of strategy implementation

There are inherent problems associated with the use of the erm strategy implementation. From a strict strategic planning per- pective, theorists would argue that there are some significant

ifferences between implementation as a strategy and implemen- ation as a plan. Any confusion over terminology used to describe trategy planning or strategy management is further compounded y the differing approaches devised to enhance understanding of

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 46410716. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Bell), [email protected] (G. Dean),

[email protected] (P. Gottschalk).

268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. oi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.01.002

© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

competitive advantage. Four distinct schools of thought can be identified (McKiernan, 1997):

• Prescriptive (deliberate or planned approach). • Emergent (learning). • Competitive positioning. • Core competencies or resource/knowledge-based.

These approaches are often presented as contradictory and conceptually opposed. The prescriptive approach emphasises long-term planning designed to achieve a best fit between the organisations strategy and its environment. It is often regarded as a highly systematised and deterministic process (Andrews, 1987; Ansoff, 1965). This approach is in appropriate during periods of rapid or turbulent change, the setting of longer-term objectives is necessary in order to support all elements involved in the imple- mentation project.

The emergent or learning approach (Mintzberg, Quinn, & Ghoshal, 1995) is better suited to dynamic and hyper-competitive environment. Mintzberg et al. (1995) argues that strategy is a com- bination of deliberate plans and emergent adjustments over time.

The literature suggests that the most dominant paradigm of the 1980s was that of competitive positioning as proffered by Porter (1980). This approach centres on the premise that an organisation positions itself within its competitive environment with the aim of generating superior performance. This approach is also referred to

as ‘outside-in’ because of its focus on the environment.

The core competence approach, which emerged in the 1990s takes the opposite view of competitive positioning in that it sug- gests that competitive advantage arises from an organisations’ internally developed core competences or distinctive capabilities

3 forma

( o t r

o b t e a O P

a c i t l a i c t m

w t F p a t p

3

m a t f i p e S p t o f a (

m g a a t a t p ‘

a s i a f

44 P. Bell et al. / International Journal of In

Heene & Sanchez, 1997; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). This ‘inside- ut’ approach assumes that competitive advantage depends upon he behaviour of the organisation, rather than its competitive envi- onment.

A more moderate view of these approaches suggest that an rganisation such as the Norwegian Police Service would be est suited to look upon these approaches as being complemen- ary. With organisations needing to develop both internal and xternal focus in order to develop knowledge-based competences nd implementation strategies to manage change (Greenley & ktemgil, 1996; Greenly & Foxall, 1997; Mintzberg et al., 1995; rahalad & Hamel, 1990).

Finally, the concept of implementation is viewed by Bronn nd Bronn (2003) as a function of the strategic planning pro- ess, one that requires broad-based stakeholder investment if it s to be successful in attaining its goals. Too often new func- ions are introduction to organisations from the top-down with ittle communication to all those affected. Bronn and Bronn (2003) rgues that part of the planning process would include stakeholder nvolvement, communicating to those that will be affected by the hange how they will be affected and discussing what can be done o manage the impact of that change in a collaborative environ-

ent. The theories and frameworks of strategic planning processes are

ell documented within the literature, but the practical evidence of heir application is in relatively short supply. A study by Glaister and alshaw (1999) examined the views of businesses towards strategic lanning and provides additional empirical evidence of the tools nd techniques used in this area and worthy of consideration by he Norwegian Police Service during the implementation of their ropose intelligence model.

. Strategy implementation issues

Strategy can simply be defined as principles, a broad-based for- ula, to be applied in order to achieve a purpose. These principles

re general guidelines guiding the daily work to reach organiza- ional goals. Strategy is both a plan for the future and pattern rom the past, it is the match an organization makes between its nternal resources and skills (sometimes collectively called com- etencies) and the opportunities and risks created by its external nvironment. Strategy is the long-term direction of an organization. trategy is the course of action for achieving an organization’s pur- ose. Strategy is the pattern of resource allocation decisions made hroughout the organization. Strategy is the direction and scope f an organization over the long-term, which achieves advantage or the organization through its configuration of resources within

changing environment and to fulfill stakeholders’ expectations Johnson & Scholes, 2002).

Strategic planning represents the extent to which decision- akers look into the future and use formal planning methodolo-

ies. Planning is something we do in advance of taking action. It is nticipatory decision-making. We make decisions before actions re required. According to Mintzberg (1994), planning is future hinking, it is about controlling the future, it is decision-making, nd it is a formalized procedure to produce an articulated result, in he form of an integrated system of decisions. The result of strategic lanning manifests itself in a strategic plan such as the document

National Strategy for Intelligence and Analysis’. The strategy execution task is commonly the most complicated

nd time-consuming part of strategic management. In contrast, trategy formulation is primarily an intellectual and creative act nvolving analysis and synthesis. Implementation is hands-on oper- tion and action-oriented human behavioral activity that calls or executive leadership and key managerial skills. In addition,

tion Management 30 (2010) 343–349

implementing a new strategy often requires a change in orga- nizational direction and frequently entails a focus on effecting strategic change. Therefore, strategic change often needs a sense of urgency and effective communication. More than half of the strategies devised by organizations are never actually implemented (Atkinson, 2006). As a consequence, discussions of whether man- agers ‘walk their talk’, ‘show word-deed alignment’ or ‘adhere to their plans’ have emerged. One approach in these discussions, is to study strategy implementation consistency, i.e. the alignment of an organization’s resource allocation decisions with their artic- ulated strategy over time (Brauer & Schmidt, 2006). Sometimes, phased implementation of police strategy is an alternative (Quinton & Olagundoye, 2004), where some police districts test out the strat- egy before it is rolled out in the whole nation.

Atkinson (2006) reports six silent killers of strategy imple- mentation: top-down senior management style, unclear strategic intentions and conflicting priorities, an ineffective management team, poor vertical communication, weak co-ordination across functions, businesses or borders, and inadequate down-the-line leadership skills development. In addition, another inhibitor to successful strategy implementation that has been receiving a con- siderable amount of attention is the impact of an organization’s existing management controls and particularly budgeting systems.

Strategic control systems ensure that the immense effort put into preparing lengthy and detailed strategic plans is in fact trans- lated into action. Strategic control systems provide the short-term targets that deliver long-term goals. Therefore, successful strategy implementation is substantially dependent on effective strategic, as well as management, control systems (Atkinson, 2006).

Along with these silent killers of strategy implementation, it is of fundamental importance that a correct Diagnosis of the issues surrounding the implementation of an intelligence strategy is undertaken. Such a diagnosis is critical to implementation success. Bolman and Deal (2003, pp. 44) contend that ‘. . . an astute diag- nosis of the organisation will ensure that potential impediments are addressed early in the life of the implementation strategy’.

Further to this, Bolman and Deal (2003) argue that successful implementation strategies will address all four frames of reference:

a. Structural frame; b. Human resource frame; c. Political frame; and the d. Symbolic frame.

Understanding the ‘structural frame’ of an organisation and its potential for structural reframing is an important aspect of the implementation of any new strategy in policing. The structural frame proposed by Bolman and Deal (2003) expands on the earlier work by Mintzberg (1990) as it relates to the structure of organi- sations. Restructuring is a challenging process that consumes time and resources with no guarantee of success. Organisations typi- cally embark on that path when they feel compelled to respond to a major problem or in this instance an opportunity. Various pressures can lead to that conclusion, for example, environment shifts; tech- nology changes; organisational growth; and /or leadership changes.

Hence, in relation to the Norwegian policing, the implementa- tion of the intelligence strategy can be regarded as an opportunity brought about by an environmental (industry) shift in recent years to an intelligence-led policing platform. The strategy is also repre- sentative of changes in leadership and technology.

In implementing the intelligence strategy, consideration will

need to be given to the impact on the existing policing structure by ensuring that all relevant changes are considered with regard to their impact and the capacity of the police service to provide lasting structural support for the initiative. The challenge of implement- ing the intelligence strategy from a structural framing perspective

forma

w e w d o r l

t ( a l t r r

m a e i t i i

s t t r p t a t i p

4

l t p a t b w i c e (

•

•

•

i a m

i (

P. Bell et al. / International Journal of In

ill be to ensure that the structure represents the organisation’s fforts to align internal processes with its external environment, hile simultaneously resolving and enduring set of organisational ilemmas; are the crime problems at the local level representative f the national priorities, the balancing competing priorities and esourcing and the integration of the intelligence strategy into the ocal policing context.

The ‘human resource frame’, as it suggests is concerned with he human needs associated with the implementation strategy Bolman & Deal, 2003). The human frame addresses such issues s the training and resourcing of staff assuming the role of intel- igence officers in support of the intelligence strategy. This would hen lead to questions surrounding the training and technological esourcing of personnel. The human resource frame highlights the elationship between people and the organisation.

The ‘political frame’ addresses the organisational decision- aking aspects in relation to the implementation strategy. Political

ssumptions, power and decision-making, coalitions and conflict manating from the implementation of change within the organ- sation are all elements of the political frame. The introduction of he intelligence strategy will undoubtedly have a negative and pos- tive impact on many in the organisation. The frame considers the mpact of these issues on the success of the implementation project.

Finally, the ‘symbolic frame’ endeavours to address the issues urrounding the values of those participating in the implementa- ion strategy. Intrinsic issues surrounding; ‘a noble cause’ or ‘for he betterment of the organisation and the community’ and are epresentative of a higher moral and ethical cause that lends sup- ort to implementation strategy. Further to this those involved in he implementation project are of the belief that the work they re doing has meaning and that it is symbolic of their worth to he organisation. It is therefore essential that those engaged in the mplementation project are equally supported and have a sense of urpose.

. Strategy implementation experience

The term implementation is given a variety of meanings in the iterature. Implementation is a procedure directed by management o install planned change in an organization. Implementation is the rocess of gaining targeted organizational members’ appropriate nd committed use of an innovation. Implementation is the extent o which an innovation becomes ingrained within organizational ehaviors. Some authors find implementation to be completed hen change is occurring, while others find it continues until

ntended benefits have been realized (Gottschalk, 1999). When a rime reduction strategy was implemented in the UK, the barri- rs that affected implementation were separated into three themes Harrington, Trikha, & France, 2006):

How the strategy was constructed and managed centrally: Ten- sions between high ambitions when selling the strategy and low ambitions for delivered results. The development and rollout of the strategy: Confusion locally over how the new strategy connected with existing programs. The impact of local circumstances: Competition between high priority strategies and tasks.

According to Bullock, Farrell, & Tilley (2002: 33), “. . .effective mplementation of crime reduction projects is essential if the aims

re going to be achieved. There is a long history of partial imple- entation failure in crime reduction projects”. When an earlier crime reduction strategy was implemented

n the UK, the following implementation lessons were learned Homel, Nutley, Webb, & Tilley, 2004):

tion Management 30 (2010) 343–349 345

• Invest to deliver: It requires continuous development work. It goes beyond the routine processes of basic planning and pri- ority setting. It requires a raft of preparatory work including assessments of capacity for implementation, options based on realistic risk assessments, and the development of viable and flex- ible management systems, including performance management loops.

• Organize centrally to deliver locally: To support efficient local implementation, the central agency must be an active part. This means that the center itself must be appropriately staffed with competent personnel capable of providing direct support to local initiatives.

• Separate research and evaluation from program delivery: The problem here is the different timetables for operational versus research and evaluation issues. Therefore, action to research and develop the evidence base should be undertaken as a separate but related parallel activity to the delivery of the main strategy.

• Build and maintain a knowledge management system: The man- agement and dissemination of knowledge about implementation failures and successes, and practices and policies should be in place to stimulate learning. Effective knowledge management is basic to the continuing development and evolution of strategy implementation.

• Create flexible fund management models: Often, strategy imple- mentation requires funding. The crime reduction strategy suffered from a variety of funding and budgeting problems. Many of these difficulties appear to have been the result of changes in the operations of central financial management in the Home Office.

When three different strategies for combating burglary were implemented in The Metropolitan Police, Gloucestershire Constab- ulary, and Hampshire and Isle of Wright Constabulary in the UK, the enablers that affected implementation were separated into three themes (Stockdale & Gresham, 1995):

• Publicity: A high profile named operation brings a number of advantages. It provides a unifying focus to a range of activities, and it makes police operations understandable to the public.

• Internal communication: An effective communication and consul- tation system is vital in ensuring the successful implementation of any strategy and in encouraging officers’ commitment and support.

• Training: Consideration should be given at the planning stage to training needs.

5. Police intelligence strategy

The aim of intelligence strategy is to continue to develop intelligence-led policing in all parts of a nation and in all regions of the world. An intelligence strategy provides a framework for a structured problem solving and partnership enhanced approach, based around a common model. For example, the National Intelli- gence Model (NIM) in the UK is a structured approach to improve intelligence-led policing both centrally and locally in policing dis- tricts such as the South Yorkshire Police.

As an example, the South Yorkshire Police intelligence strat- egy (SYPIS, 2007) is a combination of NIM and the South Yorkshire Policing Model (SYPM), as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Projects are created within the strategy. Action managers have

been appointed for these projects, and they report to the Intel- ligence Strategy Management Board on a quarterly basis. The Intelligence Strategy Management Board directs, sets targets and reviews progress of these actions completed ones may be dis- charged and new ones added.

346 P. Bell et al. / International Journal of Informa

F

f I m m m c

c t w m a i i

o h

ig. 1. Intelligence strategy management structure in South Yorkshire Police.

NIM is a model for policing that should ensure information is ully researched, developed and analyzed to provide intelligence. ntelligence enables senior managers to provide strategic direction,

ake tactical resource decisions about operational policing, and anage risk. The model works at three levels: (1) local/basic com- and unit, (2) force and/or regional, and (3) serious and organized

rime that is usually national or international. The organization of information within NIM starts with the

reation of a strategic assessment. The strategic assessment iden- ifies issues that are likely to affect service delivery. All partners ithin crime and disorder reduction partnerships in England com- it resources and coordinate activity to deal with those issues. An

ccurate and thorough assessment will allow managers to make

nformed decisions about service delivery, which will assist them n achieving performance targets (SYPIS, 2007).

However, before presenting our research model which is based n the NIM framework a closer examination of the nature of ow intelligence is manufactured in the first instance is nec-

Fig. 2. Model of in

tion Management 30 (2010) 343–349

essary to provide a more nuanced understanding of the how information is transformed into actionable knowledge for police intelligence implementation. Such an understanding highlights how the intelligence process is often more art and craft than science. The following Fig. 2 presents a diagrammatic represen- tation of the intelligence model used by the NIM as outlined by (Innes, Fielding, & Cope, 2005). It should be noted that the four key processes of Acquiring, Analysing, Assaying and Actioning informa- tion to turn it into intelligence knowledge is a generalist strategy that fits comfortable with other models of intelligence gathering (http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e09042536 Chapter 05.pdf).

The intelligence model presented above is largely self- explanatory. However, a few comments about the three problem- atic issues noted on the diagram are in order as they speak to core research themes in so far as the implementation strategy of this model is concerned. Firstly, the problem of information overload is a constant issue for intelligence gathering. Users like street police input information without any real appreciation of what is valu- able or irrelevant information since such data can only take on such meaning once it is analysis and assayed by the crime analyst. More- over, what is irrelevant today may turn out to be highly relevant tomorrow. So the desire to ‘catch everything’ in a database leads to a ‘more is worse’ situation where so much information is captured that it become impossible to process it in any meaningful way in the short-term.

Secondly, the intelligence cycle operates as a black box. In that, the way intelligence is filtered down through layers of analysis and organised into various report formats becomes a ‘funnel’ as shown on the diagram. Conceptually, as Innes et al. (2005) have shown this

process of funneling involves various types of reasoning (notably, figurative and tracking) which in themselves are processes that “. . .draw upon a combination of tacit and codified knowledge about criminality and offending patterns that they (crime analysts) use to inform what information they convert into intelligence and the

telligence.

formation Management 30 (2010) 343–349 347

p I v (

i i c k

t n

e t ( e k c o k u p i o &

6

d w d p a

c a d e i

l

(

P. Bell et al. / International Journal of In

roducts that this is used to manufacture” (Innes et al., 2005:47). n the light of this conceptual funnelling which is embedded in the ery nature of intelligence work it is not surprising that Innes et al. 2005:39) adopt the position as stated:

It is argued that the sense of enhanced objectivity often attributed to the products of ‘intelligence work’ is frequently overstated. The products of crime analysis are better understood as an artifact of the data and methods used in their construction, rather than providing an accurate representation of any crime problems.

Thirdly, added to this understanding of the ‘fuzzy’ objectivity nherent in intelligence work, is perhaps the most vexing issue nvolved in intelligence work and certainly a most pressing con- ern of any implementation strategy is the paradoxical problem of nowledge sharing.

As Malhotra outlines the paradox of knowledge sharing lies in he dual roles of collaboration and competition required by orga- izations of their employees. Malhotra states:

Often, individuals may not willingly share information with their departmental peers, supervisors, or with other depart- ments, because they believe that what they know provides them with an inherent advantage in bargaining and negotiation. Despite availability of most sophisticated ‘knowledge sharing’ technologies, such human concerns may often result in shar- ing of partial, inaccurate, or ambiguous information. Even more critical than the absence of information is the propensity of shar- ing inaccurate or ambiguous information because of competing interests. . .(2006:10)

As the dictum goes ‘Knowledge is Power’. Nowhere is this more vident when someone is asked to ‘share’ knowledge. In a review of he application of ‘intelligent’ knowledge in British policing, Collier 2006:114) observes, “There remain many examples of tacit knowl- dge being held by police officer not being converted into explicit nowledge that is usable by NIM (National Intelligence Model) pro- esses.” Yang and Wu (2008) in a study of knowledge sharing in rganisations found similar reluctance to share knowledge because nowledge sharing involves a conflict of interest between individ- als and work groups. In that, specific knowledge is a source of ower and competitive advantage for people who own it an organ-

sation. Consequently, “people who share their knowledge with thers would lose their unique positions in organisations” (Yang Wu, 2008:1129).

. Research model

The Norwegian National Strategy for Intelligence and Analysis eveloped by the Norwegian Police Directorate in 2007 (POD, 2007) as very much stimulated by the development of NIM in the UK. It efines three levels for intelligence and analysis in Norway: local olice districts, cooperation between police districts, and national nd international intelligence and analysis.

Therefore, in our research model, the dependent variable in this onceptual framework is the extent of strategy implementation, s illustrated in Fig. 3. Implementation might be measured in four ifferent ways (Gottschalk, 1999): completion of tasks so far, tasks xpected to be completed, completion of the overall strategy, and

mproved organizational performance from the strategy.

Specifically, implementation might be measured using the fol- owing alternative definitions (Gottschalk, 1999):

1) Implementation rate to date: Divide projects actually com- pleted to date by projects scheduled to be implemented to date.

Fig. 3. Research model to study the extent of strategy implementation.

(2) Implementation rate to end: Divide projects actually imple- mented to date by projects in the strategy and divide by percent of expired time horizon.

(3) Implementation extent: The extent to which the strategy has been completed on time, within budget, as expected, with desired results, without deviations during implementation, with satisfaction of stakeholders.

(4) Contribution to organizational performance: Reduced crime, increased success rate, reduced resource consumption, and improved knowledge sharing.

As illustrated in the figure, three independent variables are introduced in the research model. First, the national agency such as the Norwegian Police Directorate has to be an active part in the implementation based on realistic ambitions and effective com- munications. The national agency has to secure required funding for strategy implementation (Homel et al., 2004). Next, the local district should have available resource and align strategies that compete for resources (Harrington et al., 2006). Finally, the strat- egy should enjoy publicity both internally and in society, since a high profile operation brings a number of advantages (Stockdale & Gresham, 1995).

Agency operability is one of the items in the policing envi- ronment, where the mobilization of electronic information across organizations has the potential of modernizing and transforming information exchanges. High-ranking issues among the defin- ing purposes of e-government are highly agile, citizen-centric, accountable, transparent, effective, and efficient government oper- ations and services (Scholl & Klischewski, 2007).

Based on the research model, three research hypotheses can be formulated:

H1. The extent of local strategy implementation is positively related to the central agency’s support for local implementation.

H2. The extent of local strategy implementation is positively related to the local police district’s readiness for implementation.

H3. The extent of local strategy implementation is positively related to the environment’s support for implementation.

7. Discussion

Both scholars and practitioners have emphasized the need for

improved implementation of strategies in law enforcement and policing. Implementation is important for four reasons. Firstly, the failure to carry out a strategy can cause lost opportunities, duplicated efforts, incompatible organizational units and wasted resources. As well, the extent to which a strategy meets its

3 forma

o i t i p

t i o w a o e r d o o

N e O a t a r 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

48 P. Bell et al. / International Journal of In

bjectives is determined by implementation. Further, the lack of mplementation leaves police officers dissatisfied and reluctant o continue doing strategic planning work. Hence, the lack of mplementation creates problems establishing and maintaining riorities in future strategic planning.

Moreover, quite often implementation strategies fail because hey fail to include these stakeholders. Within the context of the ntelligence model, key stakeholders would include front line police fficers that will be responsible for recording and reporting data hich will be used to support the intelligence function. If the mech-

nism used to capture information at the street level is inefficient r difficult to use or to manage, the entire implementation strat- gy will invariably fail. An effective IMP supported by an effective elation database which would serve as a central repository for the ata must be p[resent for the implementation to succeed. Training n all systems, processes and practices is also critical to the success f the implementation project.

The national intelligence model (NIM) in the UK by which the orwegian strategy was stimulated, is a business model for law nforcement. It became the policy of the Association of Chief Police fficers (ACPO), and many forces underwent major restructuring nd were allocated new resources in order to implement it. NIM akes an intelligence-led approach to policing. The UK government cknowledged its benefits, and all forces in England and Wales were equired to implement NIM to national minimum standards from 004.

NIM consists of nine individual elements (Centrex, 2005):

. Crime Pattern Analysis is a generic term for a number of related analytical disciplines such as crime, or incident series identifica- tion, crime trend analysis, hot spot analysis and general profile analysis as well as crime clusters, crime series analysis, trend analysis.

. Market Profile is an assessment, continually reviewed and updated, that surveys the criminal market around a particular commodity, such as drugs or stolen vehicles, or of a service, such as prostitution, in an area. Such market profiling involves environmental scans.

. Demographic/Social Trend Analysis is centered on an examina- tion of the nature of demographic changes and their impact on criminality, as well as on the deeper analysis of social factors such as unemployment and homelessness, which might under- lie changes or trends in offenders or offending behavior. May also include the impact of proposed rail links, the proposed con- struction of a shopping mall and other venues in which criminal elements may congregate pubs, McDonalds restaurants service stations, parks, etc. For example, evidence of graffiti signifies the marking of turf by gangs.

. Criminal Business Profile contains detailed analysis of how crim- inal operations or techniques work, in the same way the legitimate businesses may be explained.

. Network Analysis describes not just the linkages between peo- ple who form criminal networks, but also the significance of the links, the roles played by individuals and the strengths and weaknesses of a criminal organization.

. Risk Analysis assesses the scale of risks posed by individual offenders or organizations to individual potential victims, the public at large, and also to law enforcement agencies. Also threat assessments to particular locations which may be vulnerable to criminality and more specifically particular types of crime.

. Target Profile Analysis embraces a range of analytical techniques,

which aim to describe the criminal, his or her criminal activity, lifestyle, associations, the risk the person poses, and personal strengths and weaknesses in order to give focus to the inves- tigation targeting each person. For instance, SWOT Analysis (Strengths, weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats).

tion Management 30 (2010) 343–349

8. Operational Intelligence Assessment maintains the focus of an operation on the previously agreed objectives, particularly in the case of a sizeable intelligence collection plan or other large scale operation, and/or tactical intelligence assessments.

9. Results Analysis evaluates the effectiveness of law enforcement activities, for example the effectiveness of patrol strategies, crime reduction initiatives or a particular method of investiga- tion. Such results analysis should also include post-operational analysis. For instance, once an intelligence driven operation has been enacted and arrests have been made, then a Post-op analy- sis is used to identify second tier targets that warrant targeting. They may have evaded arrest in the first phase of the Intel- led police operation or they were not known at that time but have now been ID as likely successors to those, which have been arrested during the operation. Post-op analysis allows the inves- tigators and intelligence officers to develop secondary and if necessary tertiary target packages for investigators.

To implement such a model locally, requires local strategy work, as indicated by the South Yorkshire strategy (SYPIS, 2007). To mea- sure the extent of implementation, our research model suggests three alternative definitions. In empirical research, the situation will determine which ones are appropriate for implementation measurement.

There will be variation in the extent of implementation from police district to police district. This variation is explained in the research model by three factors: national agency support, local police readiness, and environmental support. The unit of analysis is the police district, implying that there will be variation in support from the national agency to different police districts.

As this research is conceptual, future research may empirically test the research model by testing the three research hypotheses.

8. Future research

Although this is a short paper, the subject area should be of inter- est in future research. In future research appropriate methodology has to be developed and the reviewed literature will need improved integration into research model and hypotheses. This paper lacks empirical involvement, and future papers should be considerably improved by a formal research design and the use of a case study, for example. Analysis and conclusion will need improvements as well.

This paper was basically a description of what has been done in terms of e-government application in a very small domain. Future research papers will need clear research objectives, research ques- tions or issues to be addressed, as well as managerial implications.

9. Conclusion

Both scholars and practitioners have emphasized the need for improved implementation of strategies in law enforcement and policing. At the same time, strategy implementation suffers from a general lack of academic attention. Despite the importance of the strategy execution process, much more attention is paid to strategy formulation than strategy implementation.

This research paper has made a contribution to the strategy implementation literature by developing a research model to study implementation of police intelligence strategy. Future research might empirically test the suggested research hypotheses.

References

Andrews, K. (1987). The concept of corporate strategy. Irwin: Homewood, IL. Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy.

forma

A

B

B

B

B

(

C

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

I

J

M

M

M

M

P. Bell et al. / International Journal of In

tkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: A role for the balanced scorecard? Management Decision, 44(10), 1441–1460.

olman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organisations: Artistry, choice and lead- ership (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.

rauer, M., & Schmidt, S. L. (2006). Exploring strategy implementation consistency over time: The moderating effects of industry velocity and firm performance. Journal of Management Governance, 10, 205–226.

ronn, P., & Bronn, G. (2003). A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 291–303.

ullock, K., Farrell, G., & Tilley, N. (2002). Finding and implementing crime reduction initiatives. London, UK: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research Develop- ment and Statistic Directorate, Home Office. www.policereform.gov.uk.

2005). Guidance on the national intelligence model. Bedford, UK: Centrex, National Centre for Policing Excellence.

ollier, P. (2006). Policing and the intelligent application of knowledge. Public Money & Management, 26(2), 109–116.

laister, K. W., & Falshaw, R. (1999). Strategic planning: Still going strong? Long Range Planning, 32(1), 107–116.

ottschalk, P. (1999). Strategic information systems planning: The IT strategy imple- mentation matrix. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 107–118.

reenley, G., & Oktemgil, M. (1996). A development of the domain of marketing planning. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(1), 29-51.

reenly, G., & Foxall, G. (1997). Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK compa- nies: The implications for company performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(2), 259–284.

arrington, V., Trikha, S., & France, A. (2006). Process and early implementation issues: Emerging findings from the On Track evaluation. London, UK: Home Office Online Report 06/04. www.policereform.gov.uk.

eene, A., & Sanchez, R. (1997). Competence-based strategic management. New York, NY: John Wiley.

omel, P., Nutley, S., Webb, B., & Tilley, N. (2004). Investing to deliver: Reviewing the implementation of the UK Crime Reduction Programme. London, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. www.policereform.gov.uk.

nnes, M., Fielding, N., & Cope, N. (2005). The appliance of science? The theory and practice of crime intelligence analysis. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 39–57.

ohnson, G., & Scholes, K. (2002). Exploring corporate strategy. Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education, Prentice-Hall.

alhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems fail? Enablers and con- straints of knowledge management in human enterprises. In E. D. Michael, Koenig, & T. K. Srikantaiah (Eds.), Knowledge management lessons learned: What works and what doesn’t (pp. 87–112). Information Today Inc. (American Society for Information Science and Technology Monograph Series).

cKiernan, P. (1997). Strategy past; strategy futures. Long Range Planning, 30(5), 690–708.

intzberg, H. (1990). The design school: Reconsidering the basic premise of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 171–195.

intzberg, H. (1994). Rounding on the managers’ job. Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 11–26.

tion Management 30 (2010) 343–349 349

Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J. B., & Ghoshal, S. (1995). The strategy process: Concepts, con- texts and cases. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

POD. (2007). National strategy for intelligence and analysis Nasjonal strategi for etterretning og analyse. Oslo, Norway: Politidirektoratet (Norwegian Police Directorate).

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analysing industries and competitors. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–81.

Quinton, P., & Olagundoye, J. (2004). An evaluation of the phased implementation of the recording of police stops. London, UK: Home Office Development and Practice Report. www.blink.org.uk/docs/homeoffice/dpr23pdf.

Scholl, H. J., & Klischewski, R. (2007). E-government integration and interoperability: Framing the research agenda. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(8), 889–920.

Stockdale, J. E., & Gresham, P. J. (1995). Combating burglary: An evaluation of three strategies. Crime Detection & Prevention Series, Paper 59. London, UK: Police Research Group. www.policereform.gov.uk.

SYPIS. (2007). South Yorkshire Police intelligence strategy 2007 - Breaking the chain. UK: South Yorkshire Police. www.policereform.gov.uk.

The Intelligence Process. (2009). http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e09042536 Chapter 05.pdf. Accessed on 12 April 09.

Yang, H.-L., & Wu, T. (2008). Knowledge sharing in an organization. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 75, 1128–1156.

Peter Bell is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Justice in the Faculty of Law. He has wide and diverse experience in policing, law enforcement and security includ- ing senior analytical and operational positions with the Queensland Police Service, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, the Australian Federal Police and the Organised Crime Agency of British Columbia - Canada (OCABC). Dr Bell has written extensively for police/security agencies on topics to do with official cor- ruption, international drug trafficking, terrorism, critical infrastructure security and transnational organised crime.

Geoff Dean is Associate Professor in the School of Justice in the Faculty of Law. His areas of expertise, teaching specialisation and research are in police Knowl- edge Management, the cognitive psychology of investigative thinking, criminal and terrorism profiling, global organised crime and international policing. He is the co-author of the book entitled “Knowledge Management in Policing and Law Enforcement: Foundations, Structures, Applications” with Dr Gottschalk, published by Oxford University Press in the UK in 2007.

Petter Gottschalk is Professor of Information Systems and Knowledge Manage- ment in the Norwegian School of Management. He teaches Knowledge Management in Law Enforcement and Organized Crime in the Norwegian Police University

College. Professor Gottschalk’s book “Entrepreneurship and Organized Crime - Entrepreneurs in Illegal Business” was published by Edward Elgar Publishing in the UK in 2009, and his book “Policing Organized Crime: Intelligence Strategy Imple- mentation” was published by Taylor & Francis Publishing in the USA in 2010. Dr Gottschalk has been managing director of several business enterprises including ABB Data Cables and the Norwegian Computing Centre.