U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Image of United States Department of Justice seal

Community Oriented Policing Services logo
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 
IN POLICING 

by 
T. Dave Chavez, Jr., M.S., 
Michael R. Pendleton, Ph.D., 
and Chief Jim Bueerman 

Image of police officers looking at the computer


KNOWLEDGE 
MANAGEMENT 
IN POLICING 

by 

T. Dave Chavez, Jr., M.S., 
Michael R. Pendleton, Ph.D., 
and Chief Jim Bueerman 

The research papers presented here were produced under grant number 
1999CKW0097 awarded to the Seattle Police Department by the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) as part of the COPS Office of 
Program, Policy, Support & Evaluation (PPSE) Division Fellowship Program, 

U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ). Findings and conclusions of the research are 
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the 
U.S. 
Department of Justice or the Seattle Police Department. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ............................................................... iii
By T. Dave Chavez, Jr., M.S.
Chapter1................................................................. 1
On the Threshold of an Innovation:
PoliceandtheManagementofKnowledge...................................... 1
By Michael R. Pendleton, Ph.D. 
References..................................................... 33
Chapter2................................................................. 39
Anatomy of a Police Innovator:
ACaseStudyofKnowledgeManagementinPolicing.............................. 39
By Michael R. Pendleton, Ph.D., and Chief Jim Bueerman
References..................................................... 75
Chapter3................................................................. 79
Creating an Innovation-Centric Police Department:
GuidelinesKnowledgeManagementinPolicing .................................. 79
By Michael R. Pendleton Ph.D., and T. Dave Chavez, Jr., M.S. 
References..................................................... 107
Appendix ................................................................. 111
Understanding Police Knowledge Management:
A 
Methodological Note on the Outcomes of a Police Research Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
By Michael R. Pendleton Ph.D.
References..................................................... 116

INTRODUCTION 

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN POLICING 

By T. Dave Chavez, Jr., MS, Seattle Police Department 

Arguably, the most neglected topic in the recent era of police innovation 
has been the central role of "knowledge", particularly "implicit knowledge" 
or knowledge stored in the minds of rank and file police officers. Such 
knowledge, usually gained from years of experience, can be crucial in 
providing an effective means for analyzing problems and efficiently 
performing various police functions. Operating on the premise that 
such knowledge represents extremely vital and essentially priceless 
"intellectual capital", it is suggested that, perhaps, this knowledge should 
be more strongly considered and managed as part of any law enforcement 
organization. In the following articles the authors provide information 
and insights from various research inquiries that may be helpful for any law 
enforcement organization. 

In the article entitled, "On The Threshold Of An Innovation: Police And The 
Management Of Knowledge" the author undertook a study of Knowledge 
Management (KM) in the arena of policing advanced on the informed 
assumption that police may be engaged in KM activities and that these 
activities may actually form what has been termed "innovation clusters", 
that when taken together, comprise a police model of KM. Results 
suggest that police are much more involved in collaborative activities 
(i.e., Knowledge Management) than the conventional view of the police 
would suggest. 

The article entitled, "Anatomy of A Police Innovator: A Case Study of 
Knowledge Management In Policing" the authors undertake a case study of 
the Redlands Police Department to examine innovation leadership. The 
research reported addresses the lack of focused research on the process 
of innovation in policing and specifically addresses the question: What 
is the nature of innovation leadership and specifically the nature of a 
police innovator? Results suggest that the police innovator is more than 
an individual who is intrigued with new ideas, but is an organizational place 
where innovation happens. The study also indicates that the next step 
in police Knowledge Management is to address the need to integrate the 
various KM techniques into an interrelated system. 

The article entitled, "Creating An Innovation-Centric Police Department: 
Guidelines for Knowledge Management in Policing", provides a series of 
guidelines for adopting and implementing Knowledge Management as an 
organizational development and management strategy for innovation in a 
police organization. 


CHAPTER 1 

ON THE THRESHOLD OF AN INNOVATION:
POLICE AND THE MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE


by: Michael R. Pendleton, Ph.D. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The author undertook a study of Knowledge Management in the 
arena of policing advanced on the informed assumption that police 
may be engaged in Knowledge Management activities and that these 
activities may actually form what has been termed “innovation 
clusters”, that when taken together, comprise a police model of 
Knowledge Management. Study methodology included an extensive 
review of the literature, field observations and interviews, secondary 
data analysis and case study analysis. One of the most interesting 
and universal findings in this research was a three-part response from 
participants when informed of the nature of the project. First, in 
all cases police participants expressed a complete lack of awareness 
of Knowledge Management and its meaning. Second, when more 
fully explained, participants could quickly identify efforts within their 
respective agencies and or areas that would “qualify” as knowledge 
management. Finally, when explained as a potential organizing 
strategy that could reshape and empower problem solving and other 
efforts, participants were quickly intrigued and often began to pursue, 
actively, a more comprehensive understanding of how Knowledge 
Management might “work” in their own professional venues. The 
results of this research show that there are Knowledge Management 
activities occurring within the police profession. These activities can 
be loosely organized into a Knowledge Management Model, which 
can be adopted as an organizing management strategy within a police 
organization. Perhaps the most surprising finding is that the police are 
much more involved in collaborative activities than the conventional 
view of the police would suggest. 


ON THE THRESHOLD OF AN INNOVATION:
POLICE AND THE MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE


Arguably, the most neglected topic in the Problem Oriented Policing 
era of policing has been the central role of “knowledge” in problem 
solving. This omission is significant for at least two reasons. First, 
knowledge and its management, is consistently viewed as a “bed 
rock necessity” for innovation in police problem solving (Geller and 
Swanger, 1995 pp 154). Herman Goldstein, in his seminal work on 
Problem Oriented Policing (POP) consistently emphasized the critical 
role of knowledge to the problem solving approach. Goldstein (1990) 
noted the difficulties of tapping implicit knowledge “stored in the 
minds of rank and file police officers” to analyze problems (pp 93), 
the importance of sharing knowledge with citizens as one aspect of 
solving problems (pp 114), the lack of a “tradition of proceeding 
logically from knowledge gained…to the fashioning of an appropriate 
response” (pp 15), and the importance of creating new knowledge 
through self critique (pp15) cross system knowledge sharing 
(pp 168-171) and research (pp 171-172). Quite simply, the 
management of knowledge is at the heart of Problem Oriented 
Policing. 

Second, in an “internet world” where information flows at the 
“speed of thought,” managing knowledge becomes a key determinant 
in an organizations ability to meet conventional expectations for 
organizational viability. Failure to effectively manage organizational 
knowledge can quickly define a public safety organization as inept 
and in need of reform, as the issuance of student visas well after 
the September 11th attack to dead hijackers by the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service clearly illustrated (Ross, 2002). In today’s world 
of “e-government”(Williams, 2001) managing knowledge is no longer 
viewed as a cutting edge activity; it is now a shared expectation. 


THE INNOVATION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 

Knowledge management (KM) as an innovation and applied area of 
expertise has clearly been recognized by the private sector 
(Hansen, et. al. 1999, Gore and Gore, 1999, Hickins, 1999). While 
various definitions of KM are found in a rapidly developing literature 
on knowledge management (Loughridge, 1999), all rest on the 
recognition that organizations contain vast amounts of untapped 
knowledge and create knowledge that is not simply a resource, but 
an essential ingredient for competitive advantage and organizational 
success. Knowledge management is viewed as a central “management 
activity” to capitalize on the intellectual assets held by employees, 
databases, process knowledge, and other organizational expertise 
(Bukowitz and Williams, 1999). In this respect, the management of 
organizational knowledge is not a passive activity commonly associated 
with data storage, or other isolated information strategies, but a 
proactive strategy that is tightly integrated with operational processes 
and integrally related to organizational activities (Darwin, 2001). 
The fundamental management task of KM is the transformation 
of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. In effect, KM is the 
purposeful and strategic transformation of information and expertise 
into organizational action. Predictably, computer technology 
and rapidly developing software specifically to facilitate KM have 
advanced Knowledge Management as a central management strategy 
(Goodridge, 2001). 

While some observers have been inclined to dismiss KM as yet 
another transient management fad (Holtham, 1997), there is little 
evidence that this is the case. In 1996, U.S. business spent $1.5 billion 
on KM and by mid 1999 it was estimated that this expenditure would 
increase to $5 billion (Newcombe, 1999). By 2001, it was estimated 
that expenditures could reach as high as $12 billion by the year 2004 
(Williams, 2001). In 2001, a Knowledge Management Certification 
Board was established, as well as a KM certification program 
with core curriculums requiring over 60 hours of course study 
(Knowledge Center, 2002). 

Knowledge Management is also becoming evident across the 
public sector, fueled by the demands of electronic government, a 
shrinking workforce (Williams, 2001) and social crisis. In the wake 
of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, several significant KM efforts 
have been observed. By October of 2001, the Global Knowledge 
Economics Council had established the Volunteer Organization of 
Certified Knowledge Managers to work with the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) to provide training and assistance for 
the Homeland Security programs to counter the effects of terrorism 


(Global Knowledge Economics Council, 2001). In December of 
2001, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) added $1 million to its 
ongoing investment in emerging technologies to enhance KM software 
development designed to track employee expertise via e-mail with the 
clear potential for application outside the CIA organization 
(University of Southern California, 1997; Goodridge, 2001). 

While the government interest in KM is clearly growing, particularly in 
the area of national defense and public safety, it is unknown to what 
extent or if knowledge management as a management innovation 
has found its way into the policing profession. The research 
reported below addresses the lack of focused research on knowledge 
management in policing and specifically addresses the question: What 
is the nature of knowledge management in the police profession, 
particularly in a problem-solving context? The theoretical framework 
for this inquiry is the Diffusion of Innovations Model. 

THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS MODEL AND POLICE INNOVATION 

Over the last fifty years, the interest in innovation has converged into 
a field of study best represented by the Diffusion of Innovations Model, 
developed by Everett Rogers (1995). The Diffusion of Innovations Model 
provides a useful model for examining the innovations in policing, 
such as Problem Oriented Policing and, in this case, Knowledge 
Management. The model provides a comprehensive framework for 
understanding how a new idea, technique, or invention is generated, 
defined and finally adopted. Originally, the model focused upon how 
innovations were communicated linearly throughout a social system to 
lead to the adoption of the innovation. The model has evolved, now 
stressing the importance of the iterative nature of social interaction 
as an innovation traverses the various stages in an innovation process. 
The theory rests on the view that “uncertainty is generated by an 
innovation”(“Rogers, 1995, xvii) which creates new, possibly superior 
alternatives to existing approaches to solving problems, thus leading 
to the search for information. This search is manifested in a social 
process that eventually determines the meaning of the innovation. 
Rather than information flowing in a linear fashion, the theory now 
stresses a convergence model where “participants create and share 
information with one another to reach a mutual understanding” of 
the innovation and its implementation (Rogers, 1995 xvi). Predictably, 
if not ironically, the theory stresses the central role of knowledge in 
the Diffusion of Innovations Model. Is it possible that the innovation of 
Knowledge Management is actually a key factor in our understanding, 
if not determining, the outcome of the innovation process? 


POLICE AS INNOVATORS:
ON THE THRESHOLD OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 


It has long been recognized that the most valued police knowledge has 
been acquired and organized around situational or street experience 
(Rubinstein, 1973). Goldstein notes both the importance and the 
difficulty of tapping and processing this tacit knowledge as central to 
solving numerous police problems (1990, pp93). Strong professional 
norms operate to constrain the sharing of this knowledge in any overt 
formal way, making the KM problem in policing not simply a “know 
how” problem but also a “know who” challenge. 

Historically, knowing who to go to in policing was learned as an 
informal sharing among officers through story telling and other 
mechanisms. Formal methods, such as the Field Training Officer 
(FTO) coaching programs, were the outgrowth of informal mentoring 
systems. The impact of the closed nature of this system was that 
knowing who had what knowledge required not only time to learn, 
but also the willingness to tell. Knowledge seeking was linked to 
knowledge brokers and often held hostage for the empowerment of a 
police subculture. 

In the beginning of the 1990’s, the police profession experienced a 
dramatic shift from what was commonly considered a conservative 
profession resistant to change to what some see as on the “forefront 
of innovation in criminal justice” (Weisburd, 2001). Defined as a 
“philosophical revolution” (Malcolm, 1989) and the “most significant 
redefinition of police work in the past half century (Wilson and 
Kelling, 1989), Community Oriented Policing and Problem Oriented 
Policing became dominant themes in policing. As a dramatic response 
to a period of crisis where police activities had little impact on the 
rapid rise in crime, these innovations were diffused and adopted by the 
profession. Combined with the rapid rise and diffusion of computer 
technology, this period of innovation has been facilitated by research 
which in turn, has led to the adoption of even more sophisticated 
innovations such as computer based crime mapping (Weisburd, 
2001). This transformation has not replaced the informal knowledge 
management system but has clearly expanded it to include a more 
open organizational system. In effect this move has democratized 
organizational knowledge. 


Rogers (1995, pp 165) notes that the first step in the innovation 
decision process is not simply an awareness of the need for an 
innovation, but also the awareness of an innovation. One effect of 
the period of police innovation has been the increased importance 
of developing, accessing and applying professional knowledge to 
police problems (Goldstein, 1990). The knowledge-centric nature of 
recent police innovations, clearly establishes the need for a Knowledge 
Management Innovation, but has yet to produce the actual innovation. 
In effect, KM as a police innovation remains as part of the “untapped 
potential” in police administrators, for managing the innovations in 
policing (Geller and Swanger, 1995). It is apparent however, that 
individuals are beginning to recognize the need for a management 
commitment to an organizational based strategy for developing and 
applying knowledge. Geller (1997), in his address to a National 
Institute of Justice (NIJ) cluster conference, noted the importance of 
police departments becoming “learning organizations” that capitalize 
on their own and others experiences. This view is consistent with a 
now famous quote that summarizes early stages of the Knowledge 
Management Innovation where the focus was on institutionalizing 
employee knowledge, then CEO of Hewlett Packard, Lew Platt noted: 
“if HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times as profitable” 
(Fryer, 1999, pp 60). 

The Diffusion of Innovations Theory treats individual level awareness 
of innovation as a threshold for adoption, which is a prelude for 
community or organizational level awareness considered an end point 
known as critical mass (Rogers, 1995 pp320-321). As the salience 
of an innovation crosses the individual threshold and is adopted, 
numerous people adopt and, at a point, reach a critical mass where 
the innovation has been institutionalized. Is it possible that the 
police profession is on the threshold of the Knowledge Management 
Innovation? If so, the next critical step will be to define the nature of 
the Police Knowledge Management Innovation. 


THE STUDY 

The Diffusion of Innovations Model has been effectively applied 
to study police innovation with a particular focus on the process 
of adoption. Rogers (1993) study of the Los Angels D.A.R.E. 
program illustrated the need, nature, rate of adoption, and ultimately 
the reformation of the program. More recently, the model has 
been successfully applied to study both the rate of adoption and 
the role of research in the diffusion of crime mapping in police 
departments (Weisburd, 2001). In these cases, the model was used 
as a retrospective analysis or what Rogers refers to as “tracer studies” 
(Rogers, 1995 pp 154) to follow the innovation development process. But, 
as Rogers’s notes, very little research has been devoted to the attributes 
of innovation. As Rogers’s points out, “this type of research can be of 
great value in predicting peoples reactions to an innovation” (Rogers, 
1995 pp 204). Research on the nature of innovation is increasingly 
seen as critical to understanding what factors affect the process of 
adoption and ultimately the consequences of adopting an innovation. 

It is important, however, not to commit what Rogers calls the 
“empty vessel fallacy” by assuming that potential adopters lack 
relevant experience with which to associate the new idea. Indeed 
the police profession has a long history of transferring experience 
and information into what Muir (1977) terms “judgment and 
understanding”. This educational process “takes place constantly, 
sometimes formally and authoritatively, sometimes informally and 
extra-departmentally” (Muir, 1977pp183). Rogers notes that it is 
important to search these “indigenous knowledge systems” which 
function as a “bridge for innovations” (Rogers, 1995 pp240). This 
study is advanced on the informed assumption that the police may be 
engaged in Knowledge Management activities and that these activities 
may actually form what Rogers (1995, pp235) has termed “innovation 
clusters”, that when taken together, comprise a police model of 
Knowledge Management. 


METHODOLOGY 

A multi-modal methodology was selected to accommodate the 
emerging nature of the research focus. This approach features 
qualitative methods that are of particular value when researching 
issues that are emerging and simply cannot be captured with a 
quantitative approach such as the issue under study (Atkinson and 
Hammersley, 1994; Pendleton, 1997). The strategy that guided 
collection and utilization of data was analytical induction (Glasser and 
Strauss, 1980), in which a researcher, upon entering the research data 
field, builds and revises a conception or model as empirical evidence is 
confronted (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). In this regard, model building 
was the outcome of a “data journey” guided by the Knowledge 
Management and Diffusion of Innovation frameworks. Initial data 
was linked to subsequent data until no new data was confronted and 
data stability was realized. Data stability is based on the triangulation 
of both methods and sources (Denzin, 1978). 

Literature Review 

An extensive review of existing literature on Knowledge Management 
and its application in a variety of sectors including the police 
profession was conducted. This review included both electronic and 
hard copy reviews. 

Field Observations and Interviews 

The author is also a principal investigator on a NIJ funded project 
known as the Community Mapping, Planning and Analysis for Safety 
Strategies (COMPASS) Initiative. The COMPASS project features the 
development and application of a multidisciplinary data “warehouse” 
within a GIS crime-mapping framework, to analyze crime and disorder 
problems. Police departments in three different sites in the United 
States are participating in this pilot project considered to be on the 
“cutting edge” of data driven analysis and application. In the course 
of working on this project it became clear that it was directly related 
to the topic under study and provided both a venue for examination 
of this issue. 

Using standard ethnographic protocols both observations and 
interviews were conducted with key participants in this project from 
all three pilot sites. Participants included research colleagues, police 
personnel, and other professionals. These interviews occurred at 
several national conferences, and specific project “cluster meetings” 
where the participants in this project convened to discuss key issues 
surrounding the project. This approach for studying innovation is 
supported by recent analysis of crime mapping as a police innovation. 
In this research, it was found that the “early adopters” (Rogers 1995, 
pp 264) of this innovation, were more likely to attend professional 
conferences, have access to academic publications, and were more 
likely to be aware of recent research (Weisburd, 2001 pp19-21). 


Secondary Data Analysis 

A Department of Justice COPS Office grant funded a Research 
Fellowship that was initiated but not completed by another researcher 
to examine the application of Knowledge Management to solving 
street level police problem solving across the country1 . This data was 
provided by the grantee agency and was used for secondary analysis. 
Specifically, 58 police departments from around the United States were 
surveyed using a phone questionnaire methodology. Data from the 
interview text was reviewed to determine the nature and characteristics 
of KM techniques currently in use in these departments. In addition, 
this data was reviewed to identify specific departments that could 
serve as a case study for this research effort. 

In addition, past research and project data were reviewed and 
analyzed. This method included the analysis of process evaluation 
data from the now defunct SeattleWatch Program, formerly a Seattle 
Police Department (SPD) data driven managerial accountability 
process that was patterned after the COMSTAT process used around 
the country. Also, data from an organizational analysis of the 
Research, Grants & Corporate Support Unit of SPD was reviewed. 
The author, who was the principal process evaluator for both of these 
projects, collected these data. 

Case Study and Interviews 

Based upon the findings from the above analysis specific police 
departments and two outside agencies, the National Park Service and 
the United States Forest Service were identified as case studies for 
a more in-depth inquiry on the nature of Knowledge Management 
in Police and related public safety organizations. These cases were 
selected based upon either their comprehensive efforts in KM 
activities, and/or their “goodness of fit” to a particular aspect of the 
emerging Knowledge Management model. During the case study 
period, direct observations and interviews were conducted. Finally, 
written records and materials were collected and reviewed from the 
case study sites. Individual participants in this portion of the inquiry 
included the Chief of Police and other command, line and civilian 
employees within the selected police department. Key participants 
within the United States Park Service and Forest Service included fire 
suppression managers, law enforcement personnel, and key leaders in 
the “lessons learned” program. 

1 A very special acknowledgement and 
thank you to Ms. Colleen Laing who, as 
a COPS Fellow, conducted preliminary 
research on this topic and to the Seattle 
Police Department who freely shared the 
data for use in this effort. 


RESULTS 

One of the most interesting and universal findings in this research 
was a three-part response from participants when informed of the 
nature of the project. First, in all cases police participants expressed 
a complete lack of awareness of Knowledge Management and its 
meaning. Second, when more fully explained, participants could 
quickly identify efforts within their respective agencies and or areas 
that would “qualify” as knowledge management. This response is 
similar to the initial response when Community Oriented Policing 
and Problem Oriented Policing were first introduced in that many 
participants would indicate; “we have been doing that for years”. 
Finally, when explained as a potential organizing strategy that could 
reshape and empower problem solving and other efforts, participants 
were quickly intrigued and often began to pursue, actively, a more 
comprehensive understanding of how Knowledge Management might 
“work” in their own professional venues. 

Although Knowledge Management activities were encountered, and 
participants could agree that Knowledge Management, in some form 
was present in the police world, interim analysis suggested a mixed 
and varied definition of these activities. To facilitate initial data 
organization and analysis, the Diffusion of Innovations Model was applied 
to the data. Specifically, this model notes that innovations follow a 
path that ultimately must move beyond individual based adoption and 
become established within the organizational setting and ultimately 
the social or institutional system (Rogers, 1995). This transformation 
from an individual to a system based adoption and access is also at 
the heart of Knowledge Management where tacit knowledge becomes 
explicit. The classification of innovations into organizational and 
institutional categories, when applied to the study of KM, provides 
a loose organizing framework for the data encountered. In addition, 
the Diffusion of Innovations Model encourages one to be alert for what 
Rogers’s calls innovation clusters which together can be “useful to 
promote a cluster or package of innovations” (Roger, 195, pp 235). 
Subsequent pattern analysis of the data using these loosely defined 
categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), revealed four Knowledge 
Management clusters, that when linked together form a distinct and 
potentially powerful model. 


CAPTURING KNOWLEDGE: KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW 

The Diffusion of Innovations Model clearly establishes that most 
innovations are a response to a basic need or problem (Rogers, 1995, 
pp 132). The literature on Knowledge Management reveals that the 
innovation first responded to the simple realization that organizations 
contain knowledge that is largely unavailable. In part, the lack 
of availability stemmed from the simple fact that there was little 
understanding of what knowledge actually exists within and around 
organizations. In effect, many organizations don’t know what they 
know (O’Dell and Jackson, 1998). Much of the early efforts in KM 
have been focused upon what has been termed the “yellow paging” or 
cataloging of organizational knowledge and experiences that reside at 
the individual level. The purpose of this effort was to identify which 
individuals within the organization had what type of knowledge and 
to make that known and available throughout the organization. 

Knowing Who: Competency Management 

While participants in this study acknowledged that the informal system 
of individual knowledge is still well established, they consistently 
noted that computer technology in a web-based format, has 
produced the ability to expand Knowledge Management from simply 
an individual based system, to an organizational based approach. 
Software innovations along with programmatic developments in 
related professional areas were identified as having significant potential 
as KM applications in policing. 

• 
“Yellow Paging.” There is little data to show that police 
departments have adopted systematic protocols for identifying, 
cataloging and then making available the special skills, expertise, 
and experience of police employees. A process approach such 
as this, often referred to as “Yellow Paging,” provides the first 
rudimentary step in allowing members of an organization to 
know whom to contact to access knowledge on specific topics. 
In policing, yellow-paged knowledge can refer to specific skills 
or expertise and/or specific case or problem specific knowledge. 
While there is no data demonstrating police application of 
yellow paging techniques, there is data that suggests that police 
are moving toward yellow paging and/or the beginnings of a 
framework for such a system. 
• 
Software Solutions: The Internet search identified training 
management software specifically for police that provides a 
way to track and manage the training and skill development of 
police officers. Known as CopTrak, this software allows for 
documentation and tracking of training and skill development 
linked to specific officers. There are, however, no indications that 
this software allows for an indexing and search capability to allow 
department wide employees access to specific knowledge areas by 
individual officers. 



• Expertise Data Banks: The Department of Interior, in 
cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, has developed 
a programmatic approach to yellow paging. This program, 
known as the Shared Applications Computer system or SAC’s, 
is a database that stores data on training, experience and specific 
federal land management agency for all permanent employees 
within the Department of Interior. There is a specific focus on 
fire fighting experience and training. This database is searchable 
using a key word and indexing system that allows a user to identify 
and contact specific individuals who have the desired skills 
and expertise. This system was observed in action during the 
interview process when the participant received a phone call from 
a colleague in another state requesting his assistance on a project. 
The participant was located using the SAC system. The system 
is web based, and supervisors of employees enter the data when 
they have completed specific training, received certifications or 
gained qualified experience. 

This system is currently being re-engineered into a web-based 
application that links both the Department of Interior and 
Department of Agriculture with possible links to equivalent state 
agencies that house the national “fire community”. This system has 
both passive and active application where individuals can be accessed 
for training and other routine projects (i.e., passive) or during times of 
major fire events when expertise is required (i.e., active). 

Police departments identified in the Fellowship survey, report keeping 
data banks that link officers to specific events over time, which makes 
possible the identification of officers who are linked to specific police 
events. While virtually every police department with an automated 
information system has this capability, only one was identified that 
actually uses this system as a way to link officer knowledge on related 
aspects of a problem (suspect, victims, location, time, etc.) to a 
problem solving strategy. This system allows employee access to this 
data bank, to search for other officers who have had contact with 
specific suspects over any specified period of time. This allows for a 
“mind mining” process, such as face-to-face or electronic discussions 
between the initiating officer and other officers who have been 
identified using this system. 

• E-Mail Mapping: Perhaps one of the most innovative, if not 
controversial knowledge capturing approaches identified in this 
study, is the rapidly growing emphasis on e-mail management and 
specifically e-mail mapping. While initially focused on managing 
the volume of e-mail, which is expected to increase 40% by 2004, 
the software applications are now turning to mapping or searching 
of e-mail content. The Central Intelligence Agency has recently 
invested in technologies such as Knowledge Mail, that uses 


keywords or phrases in employee e-mail to track expertise. When 
the user seeks colleagues who are knowledgeable about a topic, 
the system connects the employees by e-mail. Currently there is 
no data showing that police departments have access or are using 
this approach to capturing individual level knowledge. 

While these individual based knowledge systems provide links to 
immediate problems and issues, they are clearly “person dependent”. 
Given the current demographic trends and the systematic transition 
into retirement of large cohort groups from the police profession, 
police organizations are clearly vulnerable to the “brain drain” 
effect. As the “baby boomers” retire, the importance of creating 
organizational based knowledge management systems is 
becoming clear.


Knowing How: Creating Organizational Memory 

Data from this research also revealed several efforts to capture and 
make available organizational “know how”. These efforts focused 
not only on specific problem solutions that were effective, but also 
organizational processes that are important to problem solving. 

•
Problem Solving Case Books and Records. Some departments 
identified in the Fellowship survey reported using problem solving 
casebooks to record the nature, interventions, and outcomes of 
specific problem solving activities. These books ranged from formal 
3 ring binders to one-page memos. While considered a mainstay 
process in the formal Problem Oriented Policing approach, these 
updated versions of the time honored briefing log, were used in 
paper form by only 54% of the departments surveyed. Electronic 
versions to include e-mail based problem solving information sharing 
were utilized by only 23% of the survey participants. In the Boston 
Police Department, monthly crime analysis meetings known as CAM, 
incorporates presentation and data banking of successful problem 
solving strategies. These ‘best practices’ are available to the entire 
department for review in an electronically assessable data bank. 
• 
Process Documentation and Mapping. The importance of 
documenting and evaluating organizational processes is evident 
in police programs. In Seattle, a recent effort to create a data 
driven managerial accountability program known as SeattleWatch 
included resources to retain an outside consultant to observe, 
document, and then evaluate the process. Reports and 
presentations on the process evaluation were built into the 
on-going process. 



The Los Angeles Police Department has recently purchased software 
known as ProcessBook that maintains a knowledge bank of 
organizational processes. This system can be applied to both physical 
process, such as plant systems, or administrative activities, such as 
budget or personnel processes. This software allows any employee 
to contribute their experiences, work processes, job procedures, 
task instructions for specific projects, and allow on-line access to 
background information. In effect, this system can document all 
relevant organizational processes and make them available throughout 
the organization. 

PROCESSING KNOWLEDGE: SHARING WHAT WE KNOW 

A fundamental feature of the Diffusions of Innovations approach 
is the sharing or diffusion of the innovation among individuals 
and eventually throughout the system. Research on Knowledge 
Management has revealed that a key ingredient to successful 
implementation, or diffusion, is an organizational culture that 
practices and encourages collaboration and openness (Greengaard, 
1998; Hansen, et.al., 1999; Matway and Andrews, 2000). Conversely, 
obstacles to effective knowledge management are common in closed 
organizational cultures where information ‘hoarding and ‘command 
and control’ management methods are practiced (Botkin, 1999). 
Given the longstanding view of policing as a closed profession 
steeped in authority based traditions, it was surprising to find the most 
evidence of police KM devoted to the sharing of knowledge. 

Building Organizational Intelligence: 
Internal Sharing and the Push for Sharing Knowledge 


Numerous police KM systems were discovered that were designed to 
process information and transform it into knowledge in preparation 
for application to selected problems. The packaging of these data has 
logically led to an increased interest in sharing of this knowledge. 

• Crime Mapping and Analysis. The evolution of crime analysis 
from “offender based” knowledge to a “place based” knowledge 
approach coincides with the diffusion of crime mapping software 
and the focus on ‘hot spot policing’. In a 2001 survey of the 
diffusion of computerized crime mapping, 65% of the top 100 
police agencies with 100 or more officers claim to have adopted 
computerized crime mapping (Weisburd, 2001). The initial effect 
of crime mapping in most departments participating in this 
research has been to ‘package’ data within a geographic context. 
Crime mapping has become a very effective way to present data 
and communicate the meaning of data as it relates to geographic 
space. In this respect, crime mapping, as it is currently practiced 
by police agencies, predominately focuses on the ‘what, when, and 
where’ of crime. Based on these parameters, crime mapping is 
used to create descriptive knowledge. 


Although some participants report the routine use of maps in shift 
briefings and other information forums to create knowledge about 
their respective geographic beats, wide spread sharing on a routine 
basis was not reported by a majority of participants. In part, attempts 
to create routine sharing protocols have been defeated by the ability 
to produce and distribute timely maps. The New York City Police 
Department has addressed this issue by recently purchasing an internet 
based software known as Map Info Map Extreme, which will allow 
40,000 officers across 76 precincts to access and share and map the 
latest available data. In the Redlands, California Police Department, 
routine shift briefings are soon to include projected maps with real 
time data allowing for in-briefing interactive analysis that will inform 
subsequent deployments. While crime analysis of data has been a long 
standing tool to support police tactical operations, with the advent 
of crime mapping it is now clear that multiple data sets can also be 
analyzed to support a wide range of law enforcement activities. The 
essential ingredient is the sharing of data both within an organization 
and between organizations. 

• Data Base Scanning. A significant portion of police time 
is devoted to gathering information and banking it within 
organizational databases. While access to this data is facilitated 
by software and user access systems, much of the data is subject 
to the “silo effect” that limits cross-organizational access. New 
software called Knowledge Insight is now available and in use in the 
Surrey Police Department in British Columbia, Canada. This 
software learns about a users data requirements the more it is 
used. By tracking topics in e-mails, frequently visited websites, 
letters etc, information is continually processed to create a 
personal profile against which all knowledge delivery from the 
departments data bases takes place. The system, in effect, 
second-guesses the users knowledge needs, searches the 
department data banks and delivers data proactively. This software 
will also examine current cases that an officer is working, and 
then automatically search the department databases and deliver 
the most relevant documents and information sources. This 
system will perform “modus operandi” analysis on new cases as 
they are entered and search the organization databases for related 
cases. The system can also be set to report on crimes that exceed 
a predetermined number in a certain location on seven-day rolling 
period and then alert users when these offenses exceed the crime 
spree number. 


• 
Lap Top Knowledge Systems. There is clear data showing a 
predominate trend to putting knowledge systems into the field 
setting. The primary vehicle for this effort is the laptop computer. 
A leader in this effort is the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 
Department in North Carolina. Taking a “systems approach”, 
this police department is integrating custom built databases, 
an enhanced CAD system, a field interview system, trend alert 
system, and internal affairs case management system. The basis 
for this approach is working officers in the field build a long-term 
view of policing around information management and use. The 
operating objective is to move from an organizational that simply 
stores information to an organization that interacts with the data 
to create operational knowledge on a day-to-day basis in the field 
(Pilant, 1999). Data sharing is at the heart of this system. 
• 
Data Warehousing. Law enforcement agencies have been 
sharing data for sometime. Specialized databases such as the 
HITS system in Washington State, for tracking serial killers and 
sex offenders have been based on the similar sharing agreements 
that have support national databases such as the FBI’s Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and more recently the 
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). New systems are now 
becoming evident that center on web-based applications that 
create data warehouses using data from a wide variety of law 
enforcement agencies that span virtually all types of data. 


In Arizona, a system called COPLINK initially focused upon database 
consolidation and warehousing for the Tucson Police Department. 
The software merges stand-alone databases such as mug shot files, 
vehicle identifications, and crime locations within the department’s 
databases and intra organizational searches. The system creates a new 
or “mega data base” often called a data mart or warehouse and has 
evolved to include surrounding police departments enabling 
inter-organizational sharing and access of each other’s data. A 
subsequent phase of the project has employed artificial intelligence 
techniques to help users discover hidden links between people, 
organizations, locations, vehicles and weapons across all the data in the 
data warehouse. By 2002, COPLINK is expected to cover 70 percent 
of the police organizations in Arizona. A similar data warehouse 
system has been in operation in Delaware since 1997, as well as in the 
Baltimore County Police Department (Groff and LaVigne (1998). 

While the Arizona and Delaware cases seem to be successful, other 
attempts to create data warehouses are still developing. A system 
developed by GTE, known as the Bastille, also creates a data 
warehouse from a variety of agencies that share their data. This 
system is constructed as a subscriber system where participating 
agencies pay a fee and are linked to each other in a web based 


private network. A recent evaluation of this system notes what has 
been termed the ‘chicken and egg challenge’. Until there is useful 
information in the system it is difficult to get agencies to subscribe. 
Larger agencies are reported to be joining the system but smaller 
agencies have yet to become involved (Davis, 1999). 

• 
Community Internet Access. Many law enforcement agencies 
are making selected portions of their data available to the 
community over the Internet. While the majority of data are 
crime statistics, several departments are now providing maps on 
line as well (Boba, 1999). Some departments are now providing 
user-friendly ‘front-end’ systems to enable citizens to construct 
their own maps in conjunction with the department’s community-
policing program (Rich, 1998). 
• 
Knowledge Banks. One of the more important developments 
in policing over the last 20 years has been the growing 
participation of the police profession in university-based research. 
During this period, an extensive knowledge base has developed 
and is currently available in abstract form through a CD ROM 
subscription service that is also linked to a standard quarterly hard 
copy journal. None of the participants in this study were aware 
of or reported using this service. In a recent national survey of 
police departments, participants did report awareness of 
crime-mapping hot spot research and the availability of academic 
books on crime mapping and analysis within the department 
(Weisburd, 2001). 


While the majority of knowledge sharing has been confined to intra 
and inter law enforcement agency initiatives, there is a clear move 
to cross the traditional boundaries of the police profession. The 
willingness of law enforcement to share data, not just internally within 
the organization and profession but also to include other government 
agencies and the community is evident in the findings of this research. 


APPLYING KNOWLEDGE: USING WHAT WE KNOW 

Innovation-process research stresses the application or implementation 
stage involved in putting an innovation to use within an organization 
(Rogers, 1995). Indeed, the ultimate purpose of Knowledge 
Management is not simply to make knowledge available, but to apply 
it to reach organizational objectives (Williams, 2001). This research 
clearly provides data that knowledge derived from K M techniques are 
being applied to address crime and disorder as well as 
organizational issues. 

Crime and Disorder Applications 

There is long standing evidence that Knowledge Management 
techniques are used in the routine police activities to address crime 
and disorder problems. The success of using dedicated data base 
searches such as AFIS or the HITS programs discussed above is 
well known. Data driven patrol staffing and allocation models have 
been in place for twenty years. Yet participants universally agree that 
these applications represent but a small fraction of the organizational 
knowledge that is available to inform the day-to-day police patrol. 
The more visible and growing use of Knowledge Management 
techniques is in the area of targeted crimes. 

• Targeted Crime Mapping: The use of crime mapping has 
evolved rapidly and is now used in front line police operations 
(crime and hotspot analysis) and investigations by officers (Groff 
and LaVigne, 1998). While crime analysis has always included 
“categorical” analysis, such as time of day, day of week and 
location, there has not been a more comprehensive approach that 
would take into account the ‘crime dynamic’. Such an analysis 
is more detailed, taking into account patterns of movement, 
types of offenders and offenses within the crime, etc. There 
is specific case study data that demonstrates the successful use 
of this Knowledge Management technique to address a wide 
range of issues from auto theft, burglary, rape, homicide, traffic 
accidents, and gang activity (LaVigne and Wartell, 1998; LaVigne 
and Wartell, 2000). Evaluation research reveals significant crime 
control effectiveness based upon interventions that use the hot 
spot analysis approach (Sherman and Weisburd, 1995; Weisburd, 
et.al, 2001) 

While crime mapping technologies make such analysis possible, they 
are yet to be fully developed and implemented. At this point, it is 
unclear to what extent this knowledge management approach has 
or will become a routine police practice rather than a targeted or 
crime specific application. As efforts to create mapping models that 
predict the location of crime (Weisburd and McEwen, 1997) become 
viable, it is likely that more departments will follow the lead of the 


Redlands, California police department to integrate this knowledge 
into the routine briefing and deployment strategies currently under 
development. Direct observations and interviews with participants in 
the Redlands project reveal, however, the importance of making these 
applications time sensitive (real time data), effective (place officers 
at the predicted location to greet the offender) and process efficient 
(analytical up-front work that reflects the crime dynamic). 

Administrative and Organizational Applications 

Less apparent, but emerging in the data, is the application of 
Knowledge Management in the administration and operation of 
the police organization. Within the last five years the use of crime 
mapping and analysis has been utilized to both inform police 
administrative decision making about crime and disorder problems, 
and also as a means to hold upper level police managers accountable 
for decisions. In addition, there is emerging evidence that crime 
mapping is being used for other administrative decisions. 

• Accountability Models 
Initiated in New York City, COMSTAT (computerized statistics) 
places crime mapping in a ‘command and control’ role. Mapping 
is used in conjunction with bi-weekly precinct meetings, whereby; 
the police commander is questioned on the nature of problems in 
their area and how they are responding. The COMSTAT process 
is conducted in an open forum and includes police command 
staff in a group setting. The G.I.S. presentation is a ‘real time’ 
analysis enabling crime analysts to identify crime hotspots, 
convene a meeting to craft, and explain proposed responses 
(Groff and LaVigne, 1998). In the Fellowship survey, 43% of 
the departments reported using some form of a COMSTAT 
type process. Data is collected, mapped and then presented in 
the COMSTAT setting as a means to provide knowledge about 
both the nature of the problem and the efficacy of the response. 
Initial versions of this program were criticized for focusing only 
on the manager’s relative success often leading to “heavy handed” 
treatment of managers, rather than on a collaborative approach 
to problem solving. Subsequent versions have been designed to 
focus more on developing data and applying knowledge about a 
problem and its location through the collaborative process in the 
group setting to create a meaningful solution (Pendleton, 1999). 


Evaluations of the COMSTAT process has suggested that while 
this approach is successful in packaging and presenting knowledge 
about problems and their solutions, the success of the process 
has been limited by a lack of leadership, limited application to the 
day-to-day activities, and limited “process knowledge” (Pendleton, 
1999). While one by-product has been increased collaboration and 
integration between divisions and other units within the organization, 
the accountability focus seems to have overshadowed the actual 
problem solving or tactical focus (Pendleton, 1999). As a result, these 
accountability programs seem to be treated more as an administrative 
event rather than a routine process that was part of regular organizational 
practice designed to address crime and disorder. 

The limitations of the “event approach” to COMSTAT has been 
recognized and addressed within the Boston Police Department 
(BPD). The BPD has revised their initial program to focus more 
upon the process before and after each of their monthly meetings, 
rather than on just the monthly meeting. This process goes beyond 
simply holding managers accountable, but features problem solving 
process and a “best practices” approach to presenting and data 
banking strategies that have proven successful. 

• 
Resource Allocation Models 
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC police department was formed 
in 1994 by combining the Mecklenburg County and City of 
Charlotte police systems. Using a ‘citizen demand for service 
model rather than an officer per population model (Lumb, 1996), 
crime mapping technology was utilized to support a process to 
define, assess, and ultimately select police patrol and resource 
allocation districts (Neese, 2000). 
• 
Organizational Philosophy and Structure Models 
One department in this study, the Redlands Police Department in 
Redlands, California, has specifically searched existing university 
based knowledge systems to inform the design and adoption 
of an organizational philosophy to guide the delivery of police 
services. In this instance, the Redlands Police Department has 
relied heavily on the Risk and Protective Factors Model 
developed at the University of Washington. This approach 
stresses a community-based approach to crime prevention that 
focuses on community building and partnerships. This 
research-based approach has shaped the operational philosophy 
and organizational structure of the police department. To 
facilitate this approach the city consolidated the Parks and 
Recreation and Public Housing Departments into the Police 
Department. The Chief of Police directs these functions, as well 
as the Redlands Police Department. The effect of this approach 
has been to stress problem solving and prevention using a more 
comprehensive approach to both prevention and the traditional 
arrest response. 



CHAPTER 1 - On the Threshold of an Innovation: Police and the Management of Knowledge 

CREATING KNOWLEDGE: INCREASING WHAT WE KNOW 

The creation of innovation is intimately linked to basic and 
applied research process (Rogers, 1995, pp135). This research 
and development process not only will focus on new and original 
knowledge, but on the evaluation of adopted innovations and an 
adjustment or ‘re-invention’ process to adapt innovations based 
upon lessons learned during initial applications, often known as 
pilot programs (Rogers, 1995). The creation of knowledge is clearly 
identified as a ‘core’ feature of Knowledge Management (Gore and 
Gore, 1999). 

The Knowledge Management challenge encompasses both how to 
learn from organizational experience and how to create knowledge 
through original research and development activities (Davenport and 
Prusak, (1997). Past assessments of the police professions approach 
to creating knowledge are consistent, if not encouraging leading one 
respected analyst to conclude that police departments are plagued with 
“learning disorders” (Geller, 1997). The prevailing view is that police 
departments do little to learn from their own experience (Goldstein, 
1990) and rarely undertake research that might lead to development 
(Reiss, 1991). Data from this research, while supporting many of 
these views, also provide indications that the profession is evolving in 
this important KM area. 

Creating Knowledge: Police and Research 

• Research Guinea Pig vs. Research Partner 
The 1970’s are a benchmark period in the history of policing for 
many reasons including the opening of the police departments as 
venues, and subjects of academic research. These early studies 
not only spawned knowledge, they also laid the groundwork for 
an on-going involvement of the police in the research activity. 
While initially the subjects of research, the police have evolved into 
research partners sharing the responsibility for selecting topics, 
managing the process, and disseminating the results (McEwen, 
1999). These ‘locally initiated research partnerships’ are supported 
by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and have produced 
many of the knowledge management innovations identified in 
this research (Weisburd, 2001). Several publications such as the 
NIJ Journal and other federally sponsored publications regularly 
disseminate the results of this very aggressive research program. 
In addition, the NIJ regularly sponsors a research and evaluation 
conference each summer, and numerous other annual professional 
conferences, such as the Crime Mapping Conference. Survey 
research indicates that adoption of innovations such as crime 
mapping is linked to such research based activities as attendance at 
conferences, and academic publications (Weisburd, 2001). 


• Research and Development 
The next logical step in the creation of police knowledge is for 
the police to take the lead role in the creation of knowledge. 
The typical organizational model for this role is found in classic 
research and development units or departments. Little evidence 
exists to suggest that the police are developing R & D units 
to go beyond simply providing a statistical description of the 
department to actually employing trained researchers to both 
conduct research and liaison with Universities to do the same 
(Reiss, 1991; Geller, 1997). Yet there are some indications 
that police departments may be moving in the direction to 
establish meaningful knowledge creation role. The Seattle 
Police Department (SPD) recently commissioned a review of 
its Research, Grants & Corporate Support (RGCS) Unit with an 
eye toward changing the unit from simply a money acquisition 
function (grants) to more of a research unit. The assessment 
advanced nineteen (19) recommendations that would establish a 
research and development unit that would be directed by a trained 
researcher who would be elevated to senior leadership status and 
report directly to the Chief of Police. The work plan for this unit 
would reflect city police policy issues, anticipated social trends 
within the city, as well as a linkage to current and future police 
science issues (Pendleton, 2000a). Additionally, this research, 
while supported by NIJ, was originally sponsored by the SPD and 
managed through the RGCS Unit office. 

Creating Knowledge: Learning from Doing 

• Police After Action Reviews 
Data from this study indicates that many police departments 
conduct After Action Reviews or Critical Incident Reviews in the 
wake of police events or situations. Typically, these events are 
large in nature, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
Riots in Seattle in 1999, or when officers are involved in incidents 
of a serious nature. In both types of events, the reviews are 
conducted within the context of pending litigation and/or 
discipline. While these reviews can produce knowledge, there are 
powerful incentives to mitigate a full and complete understanding 
to limit financial, legal, and professional exposure. Predictably, the 
outcomes of these reviews are rarely accessible and/or deposited 
in a knowledge repository for further review. In effect, there 
is little or no evidence that After Action Reviews, as they are 
currently conducted, have contributed in a visible and meaningful 
way to expanding police knowledge. 


• Lessons Learned and After Action Reviews 
The United States Army and federal land management agencies 
like the Department of Interior for many years have practiced 
creating knowledge from events or organizational experience. 
These relatively simple but disciplined learning forums have 
become standard practice within these organizations and have 
led to national repositories for lessons learned from events. The 
National Advance Resource Technology Center (NARTC) has 
been developed to support Fire Management agencies across the 
nation. One of their programs is known as “Lessons Learned” 
and is designed to use after incident reports to create and share 
knowledge from fire related events. The reporting system is web 
based and is accessible by anyone. Those wishing to report on an 
event, fill out a web-based form that includes identifying/contact 
information and then a response to the following questions: 

1. 
What was the most notable success at the incident that 
others may learn from? 
2. 
What were some of the most difficult challenges faced 
and how were they overcome? 
3. 
What changes, additions or deletions are recommended 
to various training curriculums? 
4. 
What issues were not resolved to your satisfaction and 
need further review? Based on what was learned, what is 
your recommendation for resolution? 


This form is then submitted electronically and, along with all other 
reports, is shared with the ‘wild land fire community’. These reports 
are compiled and used to spot trends or common areas that need 
more in-depth attention from the fire fighting community. The After 
Action Review approach is expanding to the corporate and nonprofit 
sectors (Darling and Parry, 1999). 

• Place Based Learning 
An interesting version of after action learning that focuses on the 
location or place of critical events has been in practice since 1906. 
Known as a ‘Staff Ride’, the U.S. Army initiated this process as a 
learning exercise that require new officers to travel to the actual 
battlefields to learn from the events that took place during great 
battles. This learning technique features not simply the battle, 
but the geographic location and dynamics of the battle. This 
case study approach is highly structured with numerous learning 
objectives that feature the interaction between the geography and 
the case dynamics (Robertson, 1987). The cases that are selected 
for this intensive learning process represent landmark battles that 
represent knowledge turning points in the profession of war. 


• Integrating Events and Space After Action Reviews 

On August 5th, 1949, a crew of fifteen elite Forest Service 
Smokejumpers responded to a remote fire in the Montana 
wilderness. In less than an hour after they jumped into that 
fire, all but three of these men were mortally burned. This 
event represents a landmark case in the long history of the fire 
management community. Obsessed with this tragedy, the renown 
Professor and acclaimed author Norman Mclean (A River Runs 
Through It and other stories) began an exhausting review of this 
event to answer key fire science and management questions that 
simply were not addressed in the review that immediately followed 
the event. Using a multimodal process that included document 
review, interviews with key participants and finally two site visits 
to this remote area with two remaining survivors of the fire, 
Maclean was able to answer key questions which, in turn, have 
transformed both the science of fire management and operational 
protocols (Maclean 1992). 

While the purpose of Maclean’s work was not to advance a knowledge 
creation model based on critical incident review, a careful analysis of 
Macleans approach to this event informs such a purpose. While most 
critical incident reviews occur in built professional environments, 
and most staff rides occur in the field, rarely are they joined in the 
way that Maclean conducted his review. This blended approach 
seems particularly relevant to policing today with the emphasis on a 
crime and place model that features a more integrated approach to 
understanding and addressing crime and disorder (Eck and Weisburd, 
1995). 

Most recently, the Rochester, New York Police Department has 
developed an integrated after action review process to address the problem 
of homicide within a relatively small inner city area that accounted for 
over 80% of homicide in Rochester. A stepwise process was used to 
identify and map homicides to locate the ‘target place’ within the city. 
Then an after action review was conducted of all the recent homicides 
within the target place. All the key participants, both within the 
community and within the police department, were invited to meetings 
where a facilitated process was used to analyze the recent homicide 
cases in the target area. The process was guided by the following 
questions: 

1. 
Do you know anything about this case? 
2. 
What do you know about the victim? 
3. 
What do you know about associates of the victim? 
4. 
Was the victim part of a group of active offenders? 
5. 
What do you know about the suspect(s) /offenders? 
6. 
What do you know about the associates of 
suspects/offenders? 



7. 
What do you know about the relationship between 
the victims and suspect? 
8. 
What do you know about the location of the event? 
9. 
What do you know about the motive in this case? 
10. 
Was the incident drug related? How? 
11. 
What do you think was behind the event 
(final summary)? 


Following the after action review session, a place based analysis 
including site visits were conducted to understand fully the nature of 
the location of each of the homicides. This place analysis included 
the location of the homicide and visits to the homes of relatives and 
other key participants within the geographic space surrounding 
the location. 

Based upon this process the crime dynamic of homicide in this area was 
developed that included a focus on motive, relational dynamics and 
the characteristic of the places in which these homicides occurred. 
In particular, the criminal career of drug houses was discovered to 
reveal that at a particular threshold point, a drug house is “out of 
the control” of the residents, and become inevitable locations of 
homicides. In addition, prior to the homicides, most of the members 
of the neighborhood in which the participants lived knew that the 
event was going to happen, often weeks in advance of the homicide. 
Finally, the tracking of suspects and victims over a several year period 
revealed that suspects/offenders in one year were ultimately victims of 
subsequent homicides in subsequent years. Based upon this analysis, 
interventions were crafted to address three distinct types of homicides 
that occur in the target area. 

COMPASS: A Total Knowledge Management System 

In 2000, the NIJ launched COMPASS, a Community Mapping, 
Analysis and Planning for Safety Strategies (COMPASS) Initiative. 
This cutting edge experiment is based on the recent shift in criminal 
justice policy development toward a more collaborative, strategic 
approach to analyzing the nature of public safety problems to 
develop strategic interventions to reduce them. COMPASS has four 
components: (1) A collaborative policy group spanning a broad array 
of agencies and community interests; (2) A comprehensive data 
infrastructure that will house a broad set of data collected from a 
variety of sources (criminal justice, demographic, social and health, 
schools, hospitals, physical infrastructure, business data, etc.); (3) 
Strategic analysis of data both spatially and temporally through the use 
of a user-friendly information systems; and (4) Research partners to 
assist in the analysis of data, the development of interventions, and to 
provide on-going corrective feedback on the COMPASS process and 
the impact of the interventions. 


The COMPASS project has been under observation since its inception 
and became a focal point early in this research. Three sites have been 
selected including Milwaukee, WI, Seattle, WA and the East Valley 
Project, a consortium of participants led by the Redlands, CA Police 
Department. It was clear early in the observations as the COMPASS 
project began to take shape that it was to be a comprehensive 
approach to Knowledge Management (Pendleton, 2002). As 
one leading participant noted: “COMPASS is Total Knowledge 
Management”. The following Seattle based data illustrate what is 
emerging as a total knowledge management system to address crime 
and disorder. 

• 
Capturing What We Know 
The very first phase of the COMPASS project focused on 
identifying and soliciting large data banks from diverse number 
of agencies and organizations. In effect, the first step was 
creating a data center that held vast amounts of data from diverse 
settings that, when taken together, provides a comprehensive 
understanding of all the possible factors related to crime and 
disorder. This data was collected and organized using a G.I.S. 
format to enable a “crime and place” analytical approach (Eck 
and Weisburd, 1995). This “capturing process” required detailed 
discussions, legal analysis, and an access agreement process to 
include a privacy council review before these data from these very 
diverse sources was acquired and indexed (Pendleton, 2002). 
• 
Sharing What We Know 
Early in the COMPASS process, a leadership team was formed to 
provide guidance in the design and implementation of the project. 
Members were selected based upon their representative role in the 
larger community. This team also facilitated the sharing of data 
from their respective agencies. As part of this process, a privacy 
council was formed to review data requests prior to acquiring 
data to determine both the nature of the data to be acquired and 
how it could subsequently be shared. Additional access protocols 
were developed to both guarantee data security and privacy, as 
well as to facilitate data use. In two of the three sites, web-based 
access will be developed for the community at large, as well as 
other agencies within the criminal justice field. In Redlands, over 
30 stakeholder agencies have been identified that will actively 
participate and share information. These agencies cross a broad 
spectrum from criminal justice, schools, universities, social service 
agencies, health care agencies, local governments, and the private 
sector. 



• 
Applying What We Know 
Once the basic COMPASS structure was established, and data 
base acquisition underway, the Leadership Team went through a 
facilitated process to select a problem for the COMPASS process. 
This problem was selected from an array of issues that were 
identified as critical problems for the Seattle area. The Leadership 
Team selected auto theft. The COMPASS research partner, 
discussed below, next conducted an extensive literature review 
using the CD ROM knowledge bank of abstracted research. Over 
270 abstracted articles on auto theft were reviewed. Based upon 
the literature review, a comprehensive analytical plan featuring a 
crime and place and hotspot approach was designed and followed. 
This process is currently in progress (Pendleton, 2002). A 
COMPASS team comprised of the project director, administrative 
assistant, G.I.S. analyst, a crime analyst from the Seattle Police 
Department, and the Research Partners selected for the project 
conducts the analytical process. Based upon the outcome of the 
analysis, an intervention will be crafted, implemented 
and evaluated. 
• 
Increasing What We Know 
An integral component of the COMPASS initiative is the 
selection of research partner(s) to participate in all phases of 
the project as discussed above. In addition, the research partner 
also is documenting and evaluating the process (Pendleton, 
2002) and providing advice in all phases of the project, based 
upon an on-going assessment. Known as "action research" the 
partners provide advice as the project is developing rather than 
waiting until it is completed, thus losing the opportunity to profit 
from the understanding that the project develops (Lewin, 1948; 
McEwen, 1999). The project teams from all three COMPASS 
sites gather on a quarterly basis in 'cluster meetings' to share 
cross-site experiences and other key project issues. In addition, 
as the project proceeds, papers are developed, presented at 
conferences and published to share lessons learned from the 
project (Pendleton, 2000b; Pendleton, 2001). 



INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 

Rogers (1995), in his study of the attributes of innovations, notes 
that innovations are often not viewed in a singular way but may be 
perceived as an interrelated bundle of new ideas. The elements that 
comprise an innovation may be tightly or loosely bundled based on 
the degree of interrelatedness between elements (Koontz, 1976). The 
findings from this research suggest that together police Knowledge 
Management might be usefully viewed as an innovation cluster that is 
loosely bundled where the boundaries are not necessarily clear cut and 
distinct, but when taken together form an interconnected Knowledge 
Management Model as illustrated on page 26 in Figure 1. 

Activities in one area of the model logically connect or lead to 
activities in another. The data suggests that there are Knowledge 
Management vehicles that bring together one or more of the 
four areas in the model. The crime mapping framework and the 
COMPASS initiative can be viewed as Knowledge Management 
vehicles as they both include KM activities in all four areas, but then 
create functional linkages between the four elements of the 
KM model. 

The degree of collaboration and the level of adoption involved 
in their application can usefully distinguish the approaches to 
Knowledge Management observed in this study. In effect, the level 
of collaboration and the number of types utilized by the participants 
define the stages or types of police Knowledge Management. 

Knowledge Management as Levels of Collaboration 

Levels of collaboration refer to the amount of sharing and 
cooperative interaction with others involved in the utilization of KM 
strategies. Some participants report the utilization of KM strategies, 
such as problem solving casebooks or particular software solutions 
that are confined to individual users with little interpersonal or inter-
organizational interaction. This level of collaboration is minimal 
and generally confined to individual users. Another approach to 
collaboration is intra-organizational and involves sharing knowledge 
within the organization and often working in teams in one or more 
of the types of KM observed in this study. The Redlands Police 
Department's plan to implement real time data sharing in the patrol 
briefing setting is an example of intra-organizational collaboration and 
team strategies to utilize knowledge. The COMSTAT approach to 
data driven decision-making and accountability is another example of 
intra-organizational collaboration. Collaboration was also observed 
that involved sharing knowledge and working in teams that cross over 
organizational and jurisdictional boundaries. The COPLINK project 
in Arizona, the COMPASS project in the three pilot sites, and the 
construction of community access websites are examples of a system 
wide approach to collaboration. 


Figure 1. 

POLICE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MODEL 

I. Capturing Knowledge 
“Knowing What We Know” 

II.Processing Knowledge 
“Sharing What We Know” 

III. Applying Knowledge 
“Using What We Know” 

IV. Creating Knowledge 
“Increasing What We Know” 


During this research, the degree of collaboration associated with 
Knowledge Management varied along a continuum from very low 
to very high. Some participants seem to confine their Knowledge 
Management efforts to time honored traditional approaches that Muir 
(1997) and others have identified decades ago. Other participants are 
strongly committed to sharing knowledge within and between police 
organizations. Still others have, as one participant stated, taken a 
“shine the light of day on it” approach to knowledge and are actively 
sharing knowledge within their entire social system. Redlands Police 
Department is an example of such an approach. 

Collaboration, often viewed as the ‘neglected side of KM’ (Matway 
and Andrews, 2000), is not an attribute commonly associated with 
the police profession that is considered closed. Yet there is clear 
evidence that the police profession is engaging in cross boundary 
knowledge management activities. Specifically, data suggest that the 
police are open to collaborating with other departments, with other 
institutions, and the community at large. This collaboration, while the 
continuation of a trend toward openness, is important as it signals a 
willingness to share information and knowledge that simply has not 
been part of the long standing police tradition. In contrast, however, 
the data also suggests that there is less interest in KM strategies that 
share, apply and create knowledge within the police organization. 

Knowledge Management as Levels of Adoption 

While the diffusion of innovations model has addressed the rate and 
type of adoptions of innovations, there seems to be little evidence of 
research that addresses the comprehensiveness of adoption that might 
be associated with innovation clusters. Rogers (1995: 236) notes the 
need ‘to analyze complexes of innovations, to study new ideas in an 
evolutionary sequence’ to determine compatibility among interrelated 
ideas and adoption rates of innovation packages. 

Findings from this research suggest that the number of KM types 
may define Knowledge Management that police organizations have 
adopted. Some participants’ report the adoption of KM strategies 
that fall into only one of the four types observed in this study. 
Others, such as those reviewed in the Weisburd (2001) study of crime 
mapping, report the adoption of several of the KM strategies. Others 
report KM activities in all four of the areas observed in this study 
such as the Redlands Police Department, who is a lead participant in 
the COMPASS initiative. What was not evident from the findings in 
this study, but what might be possible is a cumulative or “Guttmann 
scale effect” where if a participant reports Knowledge Management 
activities in one area, such as the COMPASS initiative, they will have 
reported activities in all four areas (Kerlinger, 1973). In this respect, 
determining police adoption of the KM innovation would not simply 
refer to when it was adopted but by how much it was adopted. 


As Figure 2 suggests, the two dimensions of police Knowledge 
Management can be viewed as an innovation continuum. 
Figure 2. 
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CONTINUUM 
Low Collaboration High 
Individual Organization 
(KNOWLEDGE CENTRISM) 
Social System 
Low Levels of Adoption High 

Using this continuum, it is possible to place or evaluate police 
Knowledge Management strategies. In addition, these dimensions may 
be utilized to determine their impact on the rate of adoption and other 
factors such as the re-invention of the KM model that was observed in 
the D.A.R.E. innovation (Rogers, 1993). 

Implications For Adoption 

While the findings in this research suggest that the Knowledge 
Management Model may be an important innovation for policing, 
findings from this research seem to have implications for adoption. 
Rogers (1995) has identified several attributes of innovations that 
affect their rate of adoption. On factor is compatibility, which is 
the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with 
existing values, past experiences and needs of the potential adopters. 
Data from this research shows that very few of the participants 
were actively engaged in individual based Knowledge Management 
strategies, such as e-mail mapping and yellow paging, to track individual 
officers and their areas of expertise. In part, this approach may 
simply reflect a lack of awareness or resources to adopt this form of 
Knowledge Management. Another possibility, however, is that such an 
approach would be inconsistent with the professional norms against 
sharing individual officer information and monitoring officer behavior. 
Throughout the KM literature it is clear that if KM is used to police 
employees, then adoption will be unlikely (Lim, et.al., 1999). There 
is a long tradition in the police culture, to resist efforts to monitor 
police behavior. This cultural tradition would suggest a less than an 
enthusiastic approach to KM strategies that propose to monitor, even 
map inter-officer communication (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). It is not 
surprising that data on accountability efforts like COMSTAT show 
limited success, suggesting that other KM efforts like e-mail mapping 
would not be well received. 


Yet another reason that Knowledge Management efforts to capture 
police knowledge may be slowly adopted is that police culture is based 
in face-to-face situational interactions. Hansen and his colleagues 
(1999) identified two strategies for KM that are linked to the nature 
of the adopting organization. One, known as the codification strategy 
relies on documenting and storing knowledge for reuse by others. 
The other strategy is tied to person to person sharing and known as 
the personalization strategy. The long standing history of passing along 
the police culture via word of mouth and situational story telling 
when combined with the police aversion to 'paper work' suggests that 
a codification approach would not be quickly adopted in the police 
profession. Such a view is consistent with the data from this study 
where there was little enthusiasm for police problem solving "beat 
books" and other programs requiring the documentation of problem 
solving outcomes and approaches. Conversely, the data indicating 
more adoption of Sharing and Application KM strategies seems more 
consistent with the personalization character of the police culture. 

CONCLUSION 

The results of this research show that there are Knowledge 
Management activities occurring within the police profession. These 
activities can be loosely organized into a Knowledge Management 
Model, which can be adopted as an organizing management strategy 
within a police organization. Perhaps the most surprising finding is 
that the police are much more involved in collaborative activities than 
the conventional view of the police would suggest. This outward 
looking approach suggests that the police are open to learning from 
other sectors in society, such as the private sector and those land 
management agencies who are currently adopting the KM innovation. 
The fact that there is much less collaboration within police 
organizations than between organizations deserves additional study. 
There is little evidence, however, that the police profession is aware 
of Knowledge Management as an overall management strategy but is 
involved in KM activities in an incremental way. In this respect, the 
police profession might be termed a 'late adopter' using Rogers (1995) 
categorization of types of adopters. 

It would be wrong to suggest however that there are no 'innovators 
or early adopters' of the KM strategy. Those police agencies involved 
in the COMPASS initiative are clearly committed to cross system 
Knowledge Management. In this regard, the Knowledge Management 
Model may be important to police innovation and innovators given 
the central nature of knowledge in the innovation process. There are, 
however, few police participants that were Knowledge-centric in the 
internal management of the police organization. The Redlands Police 
Department stands in stark contrast in this regard and seemingly has 
distinguished itself as a Knowledge Management innovator. A fuller 
understanding of this Knowledge Management innovator will follow 
in subsequent publications from this research. 


REFERENCES 

Atkinson, P. and Hamersley, M. (1994) 'Ethnography and participant 
observation. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Norman Denzin 
and Yvonna Lincoln, pp 248-261. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Boba, R. (1999) 'Using the Internet to Disseminate Crime Information' 
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68 (10): 6. 

Botkin, J. (1999) Smart Business: How Knowledge Communities Can 
Revolutionize Your Company. New York: The Free Press. 

Burkowitz, W. and Williams, R. (1999) The Knowledge Management 
Fieldbook. New York: Prentice Hall. 

Darling, M. and Parry, C. (1999) 'Emergent Learning: Taking "Learning 
From Experience" To A New Level', THE SYSTEMS THINKER. 10 
(4): 1-5. 

Darwin Magazine (2001) 'Creating Knowledge from Data', Darwin 
Magazine. White Paper. 

Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1997), Working Knowledge: How 
Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard, MA: Harvard Business 
School Press. 

Davis, K. (1999) 'Knowledge on the Beat', Knowledge Management July, 
1999 Issue. 

Denzin, N. (1978) The Research Act: A theoretical introduction to sociological 
methods. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Eck, J. and Weisburd, D. (1995) Crime and Place. New York.: Criminal 
Justice Press. 

Fryer, B. (1999) 'Intellectual Capital' Inc. Technology. September, 16th, pp 
60 
Geller, W (1997) 'Suppose we were really serious about police 
departments becoming learning organizations?' Presented at the 
National Institute of Justice "Cluster Conference" January 27th. 
Washington D.C. 

Geller, W. and Swanger, G. (1995) Managing Innovation In Policing: The 
Untapped Potential of the Middle Manager, Washington, D.C.: Police 
Executive Research Forum. 

Glasser, B. and A. Strauss. (1980) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: 
Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. 


Global Knowledge Economics Council (2001) Knowledge 
Management Science and Technology Standards and Knowledge 
Management For Homeland Security Program Meeting 
Announcement. October 2nd 2001. 

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill 
Publishing Company. 

Goodridge, E. (2001) 'Intelligence Agency Bets On Knowledge 
Management', Information Week. December, 3rd. 

Gore, C. and Gore, E. (1999) 'Knowledge Management: the way 
forward' Total Quality Management July, 554-560. 

Greengard, S. (1998) 'How to make KM a reality' Workforce. 77 (10): 
90-92. 

Groff, E. and LaVigne, N. (1998) 'The Use of Geographic 
Information Systems (G.I.S.) For State and Local Crime Analysis' 
Presented at the Conference of European Statisticians, Ottowa, 
Canada, October, 5-7, 1998. 

Hansen, M., Nohria, N., Tierney, T. (1999) 'What's Your Strategy For 
Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review 77 (2): 106-112. 

Hickins, M. (1999) 'Xerox Shares Its KNOWLEDGE', Management 
Review, September: 40-45. 

Holtham, C. (1997) "Will business knowledge management survive 
until the twenty-first century' in Raitt, D., Blake, P. and Jeapes,B. 
(Eds), Online Information 97. Proceedings. 21st International Online Meeting, 
London, 9-11 December, Learned Information Europe, London, 79


92. 

Lerlinger, F. (1973) Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, 
Rinehart, and Winston. 

Koontz, V. (1976) Determinants of Individuals' Levels of Knowledge, 
Attitudes Towards, and Decisions Regarding a Health Innovation in Maine, 
Ph.D. Thesis, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. PS (E). 

LaVigne, N. and Wartell, J. (1998) Crime Mapping Case Studies: 
Successes In The Field, Washington D.C.: Police Executive 
Research Forum. 

LaVigne, N. and Wartell, J. (2000) Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes 
In The Field Volumn 2, Washington D.C.: Police Executive 
Research Forum. 


Lewin, K. (1948) 'Action Research and Minority Problems,' in: Resolving 
Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, edited by Gertrud 
Lewin, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948: 219-262. 

Lim, K.; Ahmed, P. and Zairi, M. (1999) 'Managing for Quality 
Through Knowledge Management',Total Quality Management. July: 
615-617. 

Loughridge, B. (1999) 'Knowledge management, librarians and 
information managers: fad or future? New Library World 100 (1151): 
245-253. 

Lumb, R. (1996) 'Manpower Analysis: Determining Number of 
Personnel Using the Scientific Method.' Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police 
Department Report. 

Maclean, N. (1992) Young Men and Fire. Chicago: The University of 
Chicago Press. 

Malcolm, A. (1989) 'Cities try out new approach to police work', New 
York Times, March 29. 

Matway, L and Andrews, L. (2000). 'Collaboration: the neglected side 
of KM' KMWorld 9 (3): 3-4. 

McEwen, T. (1999) 'NIJ's Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in 
Policing-Factors That Add Up to Success,' National Institute of Justice 
Journal. Issue# 238: 2-10. 

Muir, K. M. (1977) Police: Streetcorner Politicians. Chicago: The University 
of Chicago Press. 

Neese, A. (2000) 'Using GIS for Police Redistricting' in LaVigne, N. 
and Wartell, J. (eds) Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes In The Field 
Volumn 2, Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, pp 109


115. 

Newcombe, T. (1999) 'Knowledge Management: New Wisdom or 
Passing Fad?', Government Technology 

O'Dell, C. and Jackson, G. (1998) If Only We Knew What We Know: The 
Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice._ New York: The Free 
Press. 

Pendleton, M. (1997) "Looking the Other Way: The Institutional 
Accommodation of Tree Theft" Qualitative Sociology . Vol. 20, (3), 
325-340 


Pendleton, M. (1999) Watching SeattleWatch: An Evaluation of Police 
Administrative Accountability. A Summary Report. 

Pendleton, M. (2000a) The Seattle Police Department: Research and 
Grants Unit Organizational Development Project, Summary Report. 

Pendleton, M. (2000b) 'COMPASS: The Process of Innovation 
and The Politics of Accepting Money'. Presented at the Annual 
Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation: Change: 
Past, Present, Future. Washington D.C., July 16-19, 2000. 

Pendleton, M (2001). 'Charting a Course: Innovation Amidst the 
Perfect Storm'. Presented at the Annual Conference on Criminal 
Justice Research and Evaluation: Enhancing Police and Practice. 
Washington D.C., July 22-25, 2001. 

Pendleton, M. (2002) 'COMPASS Seattle, Washington Process Research 
Quarterly Reports #1-#7". 

Pliant, L. (1999) 'Going Mobile in Law Enforcement Technology' 
National Institute of Justice Journal. Issue# 238: 11-16. 

Reiss, A. (1991) 'What is R&D Really?' in William Geller (ed) Local 
Government Police Management. Washington D.C.: International City/ 
County Management Association, pp 339. 

Rich, T. (1999) 'Mapping the Path to Problem Solving', National 
Institute of Justice Journal, pp. 2-9, October, 1999. 

Robertson, W. (1987) The Staff Ride. Washington D.C.: Center of 
Military History United States Army. 

Rogers, E. (1993) 'Diffusion and the Re-invention of Project 
D.A.R.E.', in Thomas E. Backer and Everett M. Rogers (eds.), 

Organizational Aspects of Health Communication Campaigns: What Works? 

Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. 139-162. 

Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: The 
Free Press. 

Ross, S. (2002) 'Pair of hijackers granted visas' The Associated Press in 
The Sun: Bremerton, WA: section c pp. 1. 

Rubinstein, J. (1973) City Police New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. 

Sherman, L and Weisburd, D, (1995) 'General Deterrent Effects of 
Police in Crime 'Hot Spots': A Randomized Controlled Trial' Justice 
Quarterly 12 (4): 625-648. 


Skolnick, J. and Fyfe, J. (1993) Above The Law: Police and the Excessive Use 
of Force. New York: The Free Press. 

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded 
Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

University of Southern California (1997) 'EC2 Welcomes Adventure 
Online Gaming and Performance Group' USC In The News. September. 

Webb, S. (1998) Knowledge Management: Linchpin of Change, Some Practical 
Guidelines, Aslib, The Association for Information 
Management, London. 

Weisburd, D. (1997) Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. New York: 
Criminal Justice Press. 

Weisburd, D. (2001) 'Translating Research Into Practice: Reflections on 
the Diffusion of Crime Mapping Innovation'. Presented at the Fifth 
Annual International Crime Mapping Research Conference. National 
Institute of Justice. 

Weisburd, D, Eck, J., Ready, A, Greenspan, D. (2001) 'Crime 
Displacement and Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits: Findings 
from a Controlled Study. Paper presented at the American Society of 
Criminology 2001 Annual Conference. 

Williams, T. (2001). 'Knowledge Management Initiatives Gain Foothold 
in Government', Post Newsweek , 15, #23. 

Wilson, J Q., and Kelling, G. 'Making neighborhoods safe". The Atlantic 
Monthly, 134: 46-52. 


CHAPTER 2 

ANATOMY OF A POLICE INNOVATOR: A CASE STUDY OF KNOWLEDGE 
MANAGEMENT IN POLICING 

by: Michael R. Pendleton Ph.D. and Chief Jim Bueerman 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

If the police profession is to remain open to innovation, and remain 
relevant to the problems of the future, a more strategic understanding 
of innovation leadership is essential. The research reported here 
addresses the lack of focused research on the process of innovation 
in policing and specifically addresses the question: What is the nature 
of innovation leadership and specifically the nature of a police 
innovator? The case study approach (selected for this research and 
which provides the benefit of looking within a specific organization 
rather than across numerous organizations) has provided valuable 
insight into the process of innovation and the characteristics of an 
innovative organization. Utilizing the Police Knowledge Management 
(KM) Model, the Redlands Police Department (RPD) in Redlands, 
California was identified as a police Knowledge Management 
Innovator and was selected as a case study of innovation leadership. 
The RPD was selected by reviewing data from a COPS funded 
research fellowship that was initiated but not completed by another 
researcher to survey how Knowledge Management was applied 
to street level police problems in police departments across the 
country. Results from this inquiry suggest that the police innovator 
is more than an individual who is intrigued with new ideas, but is an 
organizational place where innovation happens. In this respect, the 
organization becomes known as the innovator where leadership is but 
one part of a larger innovation system. Knowledge Management, as a 
purposeful organizational strategy, is more than an innovation in itself, 
but is a fundamental part of the innovation process that is essential 
to sustaining an organizational culture that is based in innovation. 
The study also indicates that the next step in police Knowledge 
Management is to address the need to integrate the various KM 
techniques into an interrelated system. 


ANATOMY OF A POLICE INNOVATOR: A CASE STUDY OF KNOWLEDGE 
MANAGEMENT IN POLICING 

Since the early 1990's the police profession has been immersed in 
innovation. Defined as a "philosophical revolution" (Malcolm, 1989) 
and the "most significant redefinition of police work in the past half 
century" (Wilson and Kelling, 1989) Community Oriented Policing and 
Problem Oriented Policing became dominant approaches to policing. 
As a dramatic response to a period of crisis where police activities had 
little impact on the rapid rise in crime, these innovations were diffused 
and adopted by the profession. Combined with the rise and diffusion 
of computer technology, this period of innovation has been facilitated 
by research, which in turn, has led to the adoption of even more 
sophisticated innovations such as computer based crime mapping. 
Known as a conservative profession resistant to change the police are 
now viewed as on the "forefront of innovation in criminal justice" 
(Weisburd, 2001). 

In spite of the transformation of the policing profession and the 
subsequent role of innovation, little is known about the nature of 
the police as innovators. This omission is significant for at least two 
reasons. First, it has been suggested, that this period of innovation 
may be slowing. As optimistic research and the declining crime trends 
relieve the pressure for what has been termed 'radical innovation' 
there are indications that police departments may becoming more 
resistant to innovation (Weisburd, 2001). Absent an understanding of 
the innovation process in policing it is difficult to accurately assess and 
then address barriers to innovation. Secondly, in an "internet world" 
where information flows at the "speed of thought" keeping pace with 
a rapidly changing world is not enough. As the September 11th , 2001 
World Trade Center attacks illustrate, it is now essential to anticipate 
and prepare for problems in the future. Innovation is not just about 
keeping up, but essential to getting ahead on public safety. If the police 
profession is to remain open to innovation, and remain relevant to the 
problems of the future, a more strategic understanding of innovation 
leadership is essential. The research reported below addresses the lack 
of focused research on the process of innovation in policing and 
specifically addresses the question: What is the nature of innovation 
leadership and specifically the nature of a police innovator? The 
theoretical framework for this inquiry is the Diffusion of 
Innovations Model. 


THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS MODEL AND POLICE INNOVATION 

Over the last fifty years, the interest in innovation has converged into 
a field of study best represented by the Diffusion of Innovations Model. 
Developed by Everett Rogers (1995), the Diffusion of Innovations Model 
provides a useful model for examining the process of innovation 
in policing because it provides a comprehensive framework for 
understanding how a new idea, technique, or invention is generated, 
defined and finally adopted. Originally, the model focused upon how 
innovations were communicated linearly throughout a social system to 
lead to the adoption of the innovation. The model has evolved, now 
stressing the importance of the iterative nature of social interaction 
as innovation traverses the various stages in an innovation process. 
The theory rests on the view that "uncertainty is generated by an 
innovation"("Rogers, 1995, xvii) which creates new, possibly superior 
alternatives to existing means for solving problems, thus leading to the 
search for information. This search is manifested in social process 
that eventually determines the meaning of the innovation. Rather 
than information flowing in a linear fashion, the theory now stresses a 
convergence model where "participants create and share information 
with one another to reach a mutual understanding" of the innovation 
and its implementation (Rogers, 1995 xvi). 

A central feature of the Diffusion of Innovations Model is the role of 
innovativeness in the process of adopting an innovation. Innovativeness 
is the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption 
implements new ideas before other members of a system (Rogers, 
1995, 252). Innovativeness indicates observable behavioral change 
that demonstrates the adoption of an innovation and is considered a 
"bottom-line" type of behavior in the diffusion process. Based upon an 
innovativeness score or measure, adopters of innovations can be placed 
into one of five "adopter categories" ranging from those who have the 
highest innovation score to those with the lowest. These categories are 
defined as: 1) Innovators-venturesome; 2) Early Adopters-respect; 3) 
Early Majority-deliberate; 4) Late Majority-skeptical; and 5) Laggards-
traditional. Both individuals and organizations can be located within 
adopter categories and distinguished by factors such as economic 
status, personality- traits, communication behavior, organizational size, 
organizational openness, leadership, etc. (Rogers, 1995). 

One key factor in the diffusion of innovations process is innovation 
leadership. This leadership role is generally assumed by an individual 
or an organization that "launches" new ideas into a system generally 
from outside the system boundaries. Categorized as the Innovator, 
this individual or organization plays a gate-keeping role in the flow of 
ideas into a system (Rogers, 1995, pp 264). Examples of organizational 
Innovators in policing are the Los Angeles Police Department and their 
role in launching the D.A.R.E. program (Rogers, 1993), and the New 
York Police Department in their role in introducing COMSTAT to the 
police profession (Pendleton, 2002b). 


KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AS A POLICE INNOVATION 

One effect of the recent period of police innovation has been 
the increased importance of developing, accessing and applying 
professional knowledge to police problems. Knowledge and its 
management, is consistently viewed as a "bed rock necessity" for 
innovation in police problem solving (Geller and Swanger, 1995 pp 
154). Herman Goldstein in his seminal work on Problem Oriented 
Policing (POP) consistently emphasized the critical role of knowledge 
to police problem solving. Goldstein (1990) noted the difficulties 
of tapping implicit knowledge "stored in the minds of rank and 
file police officers" to analyze problems (pp 93), the importance of 
sharing knowledge with citizens as one aspect of solving problems (pp 
114), the lack of a "tradition of proceeding logically from knowledge 
gained…to the fashioning of an appropriate response" (pp 15), and 
the importance of creating new knowledge through self critique 
(pp15) cross system knowledge sharing (pp 168-171) and research (pp 
171-172). Quite simply, knowledge management is at the heart of 
Problem Oriented Policing. 

The knowledge-centric nature of recent police innovations, clearly 
establishes the need for Knowledge Management as an innovation 
in and of its self. While Knowledge Management (KM) as an 
innovation has been recognized in the private sector (Hansen, et. al. 
1999, Gore and Gore, 1999, Hickins, 1999), it is only now emerging in 
the police profession. Pendleton (2002b), in his study of knowledge 
management in policing, has developed a model that seems relevant 
to innovation leadership. Pattern analysis of the data supports a 
police knowledge management model that is a loosely bundled but 
interconnected set of management activities designed to capitalize 
on the intellectual assets (Pendleton, 2001). Knowledge management 
in this model is not a passive activity, but a purposeful organizational 
strategy that is integrally related to organizational activities. Known as 
an innovation cluster (Rogers, 1995), the four-part police knowledge 
management model provides a useful framework for understanding 
how knowledge is captured, shared, applied and created in public 
safety organizations (Figure 1). 


Figure 1. 

POLICE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MODEL 

I. Capturing Knowledge 
“Knowing What We Know” 

II.Processing Knowledge 
“Sharing What We Know” 

III. Applying Knowledge 
“Using What We Know” 

IV. Creating Knowledge 
“Increasing What We Know” 


THE STUDY 

Innovation leadership is not just an individual attribute. Rather, 
innovation is both an individual as well as an organizational 
characteristic (Rogers, 1995). Early studies of organizational 
innovation simply transferred models and methods used to understand 
individual innovativeness to organizational research with little 
regard for the differences. While many of the factors that predict 
innovativeness in an individual also have counter parts within 
organizations, some, like system openness and formalization, are found 
only within the organizational context. It is important, therefore, that 
organizational innovation research is guided by analytical strategies 
that are sensitive to the nature of organizational innovation. One 
important feature of organizational innovation is its stage or process 
nature. Organizational innovations generally follow a multi-step 
process from initiation to implementation (Rogers, 1995, pp392). The 
Police Knowledge Management Model, as an innovation cluster, allows 
for such a phase based analysis because its four parts are synergistically 
linked, so if one part of the KM model is adopted it facilitates 
adoption of the others (Rogers, 1995, pp 381). 

Another useful application of the Police Knowledge Management 
Model is to assess the degree of KM innovativeness adopted by 
police organizations. Pendleton (2002), in his study of Knowledge 
Management in police departments, noted that police departments 
are distinguished by the level of adoption and degree of collaboration 
that are utilized within each of the areas in the model. Some police 
organizations can adopt KM strategies that fall in only one of the 
four types of Knowledge Management, while others have adopted 
Knowledge Management in several of the areas. Some police 
departments may engage in KM activities in all of the areas of the 
model but do not utilize a collaborative approach in their application. 
It was rare, however, to find a police department that had adopted 
Knowledge Management as a purposeful organizational strategy 
with activities in all four areas of the model with an emphasis on 
collaboration. Such an organization can be classified as a Knowledge 
Management Innovator and could provide valuable insight into 
innovation leadership. 


THE CASE STUDY METHOD 

One of the most valuable strategies for understanding organizational 
innovativeness is to look within a specific organization rather than across 
numerous organizations. This case study approach (selected for this 
research) has provided valuable insight into the process of innovation 
and the characteristics of an innovative organization (Rogers 1995). 

By utilizing the Police Knowledge Management Model, the Redlands 
Police Department (RPD) in Redlands, California was identified as 
a police Knowledge Management Innovator and was selected as 
a case study of innovation leadership. The RPD was selected by 
reviewing data from a COPS funded research fellowship that was 
initiated but not completed by another researcher to survey how 
Knowledge Management was applied to street level police problems 
in police departments across the country . Specifically, 58 police 
departments from around the United States were surveyed using a 
phone questionnaire methodology. Narrative data was reviewed to 
determine the nature and characteristics of KM techniques currently 
in use in these departments. Since the fellowship research data was 
collected, the Redlands Police Department was also selected as the 
lead agency in an innovative pilot project known as the COMPASS 
(Community, Mapping, Planning, and Analysis for Safety Strategies) 
initiative. Defined as a total knowledge management system, COMPASS is 
a new criminal justice initiative to address crime and disorder, which 
involves multiple policy partners, diverse data sources, strategic analysis 
and interventions (Pendleton 2002). 

An ethnographic methodology, the mainstay of the Anthropological 
Research tradition, was selected to accommodate the (emerging) 
nature of the research topic and the qualitative nature of available data 
(Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994). This approach is common in the 
study of diffusion of innovations research (Rogers, 1995). During 
a 12-month research period the principal investigator utilized three 
approaches to data collection. Data collection was guided by specific 
questions that were organized by the four components of the Police 
Knowledge Management Model (see Appendix 1). 

Direct Observation 

Three site visits were conducted to observe the social system and 
organizational setting in which knowledge management occurs. Specific 
Knowledge Management activities such as COMSTAT meetings, staff 
meetings, and COMPASS meetings were attended and observed. In 
addition, a police ride along was conducted to observe the community 
in which policing occurs. 


Key Informant Interviews 

Numerous interviews and informal conversations were conducted 
during site visits, phone conversations, and meetings at jointly attended 
conferences in which participants from the organization under study 
attended. Participants included the Chief of Police, command officers, 
patrol officers, professional staff, and community members. 

Secondary Data 

Numerous reports, maps, crime data, and documents within the Police 
Department library, were collected and reviewed. 

THE COMMUNITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT FOR INNOVATION 

The Redlands Police Department (RPD) is located within a population 
of 70,000 people that is located in San Bernardino County, the 
largest county in the United States (20,000 sq. mi.), 60 miles east 
of Los Angeles. It has contiguous boarders with five other cities 
and together this area known as "East Valley" has a population of 
approximately 350,000 people. Located within Redlands, or within 
the immediate vicinity are four universities, two junior colleges and 
the world's largest producer of geographic information system (GIS) 
software. These institutions create an environment rich in learning 
opportunities as each has a different emphasis. For instance, the 
University of Redlands, a nationally acclaimed liberal arts school, has a 
strong emphasis on the use of GIS as a community-wide endeavor to 
create sustainable communities and provides the RPD with a endless 
supply of interns. Loma Linda University' School of Public Health 
has a focused interest in crime and public safety as a component of its 
holistic orientation to "community health." California State 
University at San Bernardino has a strong criminal justice program as 
does the University of California, Riverside. Finally, while 
Redlands-based Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) is 
a private corporation, it has a distinct emphasis on learning within the 
context of developing more powerful and useful software tools. 

Innovation As An Applied Professional Philosophy 

The RPD has a long-standing commitment to innovation. This 
commitment is formally established in Department documents as a 
written organizational value that is further articulated by written belief 
statements. This self-description of the Department and its natural 
inclination for knowledge management illustrates this commitment: 

"The Redlands Police Department's commitment to the city 
is best captured in a quote by Albert Einstein: 'The world 
we created today has problems which cannot be solved 
by thinking the way we thought when we created them'. 
Determining new and innovative techniques based on 
research that drives strategies we pursue is an integral 
aspect of Risk-Focused Policing (Community Report, 2000 
pp6)." 


The Department was an early adopter (1993) of Community 
Policing and Problem Oriented Policing innovations. In 1998, these 
innovations were further developed with the implementation of Risk 
Focused Policing. Risk Focused Policing is defined as "data and 
results-driven, community oriented policing and problem solving 
strategy which focuses on those factors in a community which places 
its youth and families most at risk for criminal and other problem 
behaviors" (Bueerman, 2000, pp26). This approach relies on the 
extensive research on adolescent behavior and the application of 
assessment and intervention techniques that address the risk factors 
that underlie most youth problem behaviors. The adoption of the 
Risk Focused Policing innovation is based on collaboration, the first 
of five formally stated core values of the Department. In 2000, the 
Redlands Risk Focused Policing Program was selected as one of the 
25 finalists from 1300 applicants to the Innovations in American 
Government Award Program. The Program started in 1986, is 
administered by the Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School 
of Government in partnership with the Council for Excellence in 
Government to honor innovative public service. 

The RPD is unique in its organizational structure. In 1997, the 
Department initiated a proposal to consolidate the city's Human 
Services Department into the Police Department as a means to 
advance Community Policing. This restructuring placed the Housing 
Division and the Recreation Division under the structure and control 
of the RPD. This innovative organizational structure reflects a 
"front-end" public safety philosophy that is directed at the causes of 
crime rather than the traditional reactive approach that relies solely 
on command and control techniques. The inclusion of recreational 
programs and housing resources gives the Department the ability to 
direct resources at preventing youth crime and attacking neighborhood 
blight. This organizational structure explains the unusually high 
number of civilian employees (85) relative to sworn police officers (86) 
that respond to 45,000 annual calls for service, of which approximately 
7,000 are reported crimes. 


THE NATURE AND ROLE OF INNOVATION LEADERSHIP 

The innovation process in organizations consists of two broad sets of 
activities known as Initiation processes and Implementation processes. 
Initiation processes include the activities leading up to the decision to 
adopt an innovation such as information gathering, conceptualizing 
and planning. Implementation processes are those events, actions and 
decisions involved in putting the innovation to use (Rogers, 1995). In 
most innovation processes, the decision to adopt an innovation creates 
a "bright line" between these two sets of processes. 

One key factor in the diffusion of innovations process is innovation 
leadership. This leadership role is generally assumed by an individual 
or an organization that "launches" new ideas into a system generally 
from outside the system boundaries. Categorized as the Innovator, this 
individual or organization plays a gate-keeping role in the flow of ideas 
into a system (Rogers, 1995, pp 264). The research on innovations 
in organizations is consistent and clear, that innovation leadership is 
determined, in part, by the involvement of an innovation champion 
(i.e., one who overcomes resistance to a project and leads in the 
design and adoption of an innovation) (Rogers, 1995). A Knowledge 
Management champion is a charismatic individual who throws his/her 
weight behind the innovation to overcome resistance to become an 
effective organizational sponsor for adoption of the idea. 

The Knowledge Management Champion may or may not be the 
person who first encounters the innovation. The distinction between 
initiation leadership and implementation leadership is important to the 
ultimate application of an innovation. The selection of a Knowledge 
Management Champion can be purposeful to reflect the demands of 
both the initiation phase (decision to adopt) and the implementation 
phase. Yet the leadership demands during the initiation phase may be 
quite different than those required during implementation. If the RPD 
Knowledge Management Initiative was to be adopted it would require 
both initiation and implementation leadership. 

Initiation Leadership: The Chief As An Innovation Champion 

In 1998, the City of Redlands retained a new Chief of Police who 
had served for twenty years in the RPD. The RPD police chief has 
acted as the Department's change agent since his promotion to captain 
in 1993. Among the core principals of the new Chief's leadership 
philosophy was a commitment to collaboration, data driven decisions, 
knowledge based service, and innovation. As such, considerable effort 
has been focused developing the personal skills necessary to promote 
organizational innovation and change. The Chief, as an innovation 
leader, has shaped his approach around three key beliefs: 1) It is better 
to define your own future than allow outside influences to do it for 


you; 2) Albert Einstein's belief that "the problems we face today 
cannot be solved using the same thinking we employed at the time they 
were created" became his professional, innovation anchor; and 3) The 
principle of "displacement of concept", which is the notion that ideas 
in one discipline can be applied in another field to yield new learning. 
Central to this last principle is the "scanning" multiple sources of 
information to identify new ideas that can be "displaced" to policing. 

Two specific areas of interest have defined innovation leadership 
within RPD: community policing and the use of geographic 
information systems. By finding analogies in public health services to 
policing the chief has become involved in discussions and projects at 
the regional, state and national levels relative to developing "healthy 
cities" and "livable communities." When the Chief initiated the move 
to consolidate housing, recreation and senior services within the 
police department, and then adopting "risk and protective focused 
prevention" as a community policing paradigm, he became networked 
with innovators in health, community development, recreation, senior 
services, education, drug rehabilitation, prisoner re-entry and family 
strengthening. This innovation network became a source for ideas 
that could be appropriated as part of the evolving RPD's community 
policing strategy. 

Central to RPD's innovation leadership strategy is the commitment to 
partnerships, collaboration, researched-based and data-driven decisions, 
and the belief that a lack of immediately identifiable funds with which 
to accomplish innovative organizational goals is not a valid excuse 
for not pursuing the innovation. This latter point has helped the 
RPD explore a wide breadth of funding sources that range from state 
and federal grants, foundation funds, community resources and an 
aggressive orientation to the department's budget simply as a "tool" to 
be used to expand organizational horizons and not as a controlling end 
onto itself. 

The displacement of concept scanning includes searching for possible 
applications of for-profit business practices and paradigms to the 
non-profit, governmental enterprise of policing. This has resulted 
in the introduction into the department's culture of value alignment, 
the identification of value drivers as a way to increase organizational 
effectiveness, knowledge management, personal strategic development, 
customer surveys, and multiple marketing approaches to 
community safety. 


Finally, the chief has clearly accepted the role of "chief marketer" 
of innovative ideas and frequently employs stakeholder analysis and 
building critical mass techniques for moving more public innovations 
across the community's social-political landscape. For example, when 
the Chief became aware of the number of seniors that lived alone, 
with alarmingly little contact with the community, he setout to create a 
senior transportation bus system operated by the Community Service 
Division of the RPD. Initially, this idea met with extensive opposition 
from a faction of the City Council and other city staff. Their 
opposition focused on funding and the expanding role (e.g. power 
base) of the police department. To counter this opposition, the chief 
analyzed the relevant stakeholders and their position on the issue. He 
then developed a strategy designed to move the individuals constituting 
the project's "critical mass" to positions where they minimally allowed 
the project to go forward. For example, to counter the "lack of funds" 
issue, he brokered an agreement with the local transportation agency to 
supply two used buses to the RPD, at no cost - instead of selling them 
at auction - and he used budgetary salary savings to fund the drivers. 
To counter the role expansion argument he spent considerable time 
marketing the concept to service clubs, retired citizen's groups, etc. 
so that by the time the proposal came before the City Council there 
was a groundswell of support that made it acceptable for the police to 
implement the project. This strategy has worked on a variety of other 
Department issues that range from the introduction of automatic 
external defibrillators in patrol cars, to employing business practices in 
recruiting experienced police officers, to purchasing a motel to open 
a city-operated prisoner re-entry facility as a means of controlling 
parolee-related crime. 

From Innovation Leader To Innovation Liberator 

While the Chief of Police is personally engaged in innovation 
leadership, there is a clear recognition that innovation is not simply 
within the purview of "management" but often has its roots in 
many other areas within an organization. To tap this vital source of 
innovation, the Chief of Police routinely joins patrol team briefings 
once-a-month, meets with individual officers over coffee, and does 
ride-along with officers to tap into the knowledge individuals "at 
the line level" about how to do things better. During a recent "ridealong" 
with a new officer, the Chief asked how they might improve 
operations. The officer then demonstrated a very unique street 
location tool he put together to help him find his way through the 
very confusing south side of Redlands. The Chief asked the officer 
why more people didn't use it and he said as a new officer he was 
told by a veteran that he could not propose the idea. With the 
officer's permission and ensuring that the officer received the credit, 
the Department has now issued his system to all new officers. This 
is but one example of how the Chief is increasingly serving as an 
"innovation liberator" of ideas from employees who find innovation 
barriers within the organization. 


Innovation Implementation Leadership: The Deputy Chief As An 
Innovation Champion 

One of the more common complaints expressed by police chiefs of 
small and medium sized police departments is their lack of time to 
focus on strategic, innovative or course altering organizational issues. 
A frequent metaphor invoked by these chiefs is that they have become 
more like firefighters than police officers, constantly "extinguishing" 
organizational or political "fires" that ultimately consume tremendous 
amounts of their time - and perhaps more importantly - their creative 
energy. The majority of these organizations have a management 
position directly subordinate to the chief - typically a captain or 
lieutenant. However, the organizational focus of these positions is 
usually division-specific (e.g. field operations or administration) and 
precludes their systemic view of the day-to-day operations. In smaller 
departments, where there may only be one manager between line 
operations and the police chief, the culture of the department or city is 
typically such that there is an expectation that the chief will personally 
oversee these daily activities, thereby dooming him or her to the role 
of organizational firefighter rather than innovation or change agent. 

The RPD's Deputy Police Chief plays an integral role in pushing 
the Department's orientation toward innovation and knowledge 
management. The police chief's intent has long been to inject private 
sector business practices into the governmental model of policing. 
Accordingly, the relationship of Police Chief and Deputy Chief is 
akin to that of a Chief Executive Officer to a corporate President. 
The RPD Deputy Chief, acting as the "President" of the RPD 
"corporation," focuses the majority of his energies on managing the 
day-to-day activities of the department, "putting out" unavoidable 
organizational "fires" that must be dealt with but do not generally 
advance organizational development. This allows the Chief, as CEO, 
to focus on issues that move the Department forward in an innovative, 
strategic direction. 

As an added bonus to the RPD, the Deputy Chief also acts as the 
Department's Chief Technology Officer (CTO). As a personal 
interest he has been involved in the use of computer technology as a 
means of leveraging the community's investment in the RPD. Since 
assuming the role of CTO, he has also been tasked with examining 
and experimenting with other types of innovative technology to 
increase the Department's effectiveness. To facilitate this role, 
he spends a considerable amount of time researching innovative 
approaches to the use of technology by reviewing publications, 
technology-focused websites, visiting a diverse range of public and 
private organizations and attends a variety of trade shows. It is clear 
that without the Deputy Chief's contributions, the RPD's ability 
to innovate would be significantly limited. He directly facilitates 
the Police Chief's ability to consider and implement innovative 
organizational and community strategies. 


Innovation Implementation Leadership: Change and 
Organizational Resistance 

Like most law enforcement organizations, the RPD experienced 
internal resistance to change prior to 1998 when the current 
police chief was appointed. By appropriating the concept of "self 
examination" from the field of psychology and applying it to the 
RPD, along with many of the techniques used by family-marriage 
therapists, resulted in many, and sometimes uncomfortable, discussions 
at multiple levels within the Department about the organization's 
tolerance for ambiguity, change and innovation. The outcome was 
a collective understanding of the Department's present capacity for 
tolerating change and more importantly, an awareness and acceptance 
that the department, 1) was going to change; 2) it was absolutely 
acceptable to express frustration, concern and even fear of the 
organizational "unknowns; and 3) with frequent opportunities for input 
and non-judgmental dialogue about the state of the Department's 
progress, each member would be able to understand where he or 
she fit into the Department's future. The police chief ensured that 
Department members knew that there would be considerable change 
in the Department's orientation, what the nature of the change was 
likely to be, and what values and skills members would be required to 
exhibit to be successful in the new organizational environment. The 
Chief repeatedly articulated the notion that not everyone would find 
this level of change acceptable. It became clear that there would be 
no organizational consequence or ill will if any member found these 
changes unacceptable and chose to seek employment elsewhere. 
Further, assistance was provided to those members who chose to leave 
the Department and it was made clear they would be welcome as part 
of the extended "RPD Family" anytime. As a result, several police 
officers left the Department for a nearby, more traditional department, 
with the chief's assistance, and remain friendly and welcome at the 
RPD. Interestingly, it was only police officers that chose to leave 
during this 18-24 month evolutionary period. 

One of the skills the Department's managers had to learn was their 
own tolerance for dealing with the frustrations and fear of department 
members who behaved in ways inconsistent with the Department's 
direction. They had to learn to deal with the behaviors by first 
understanding that they were usually the result of the members' 
confusion, frustration and fears that were driven by the organizational 
change. In every case, this lead to Department members making 
decisions that were "good for them" and resulted in either better, 
happier performance on their part or moving to another department 
where they believed they would be more content. 


Today, entry or lateral candidates for the Department, and employees 
competing for promotions, must demonstrate a high tolerance 
for ambiguity and change to be successful. This has dramatically 
reduced the natural tension associated with organizational change 
and has resulted in the RPD developing a reputation as "being about 
change." This allows most candidates to self-select relative to seeking 
employment in a change-friendly organization. 

Innovation Implementation Leadership: A Shared 
Organizational Strategy 

Central to the philosophy of innovation leadership is the view that 
innovation is a shared value among groups within the Redlands Police 
Department. Accordingly, the Chief has instituted Department focus 
groups (i.e. women officers, lateral officers, dispatchers, records clerks, 
etc.) to determine ways to improve Department operations. A recent 
"women's officer" focus group was convened to learn 1) what is it like 
to be a woman cop at the RPD; 2) what could we do to improve their 
professional experience and, 3) what could be done to recruit more 
women. This resulted in an interesting discussion about how women 
officers are frequently made to make a choice between careers and 
having children. During the meeting officers indicated their intention 
to resign within the next two years so they could start families. Their 
belief was that the RPD would not allow part time work and they 
would have to put their careers on hold, or abandon them, in order to 
become mothers. As part of this effort it was decided to figured out 
how to allow officers to work part time (as little as two days per week) 
to keep their careers going and deal with family issues such as having/ 
raising Children or dealing with illnesses. An outcome of the focus 
group was a series of policies such as flex scheduling to better enable 
women police officers to balance their family and career demands. 
These policy innovations are now used as recruiting tools to attract 
women officers that had to leave the field because the paradigm of 
California police departments is such that they do not allow officers to 
work part time. 


THE REDLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT'S KNOWLEDGE 
MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE 

The Redlands Police Department in northern California agreed 
to serve as a case study site for this research after reviewing a 
participation proposal. While reviewing the proposal, the leaders in 
the Department recognized that the Department had been involved in 
a variety of activities that are clearly Knowledge Management in their 
nature and purpose. While many of these knowledge management 
activities had been established for a period of time, and others were 
under development, these efforts had yet to be recognized or formally 
defined as Knowledge Management innovations. The convergence 
of this study with the on-going Department activities led to the 
specific adoption of the Police Knowledge Management Model 
(Pendleton, 2002) as the primary organizing vehicle for a subsequent 
purposeful knowledge management strategy. As this case study began, 
the Redlands Police Department launched the RPD Knowledge 
Management Initiative. 


STAGE I 

CAPTURING KNOWLEDGE: KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW 

The starting point for the Knowledge Management Initiative is making 
knowledge that exists within and around the organization both known 
and available. This fundamental task is built on assessment and 
collaboration that transcends a knowledge management continuum 
(Pendleton 2002) from individual knowledge to organizational 
knowledge and finally community or social system based knowledge. 
Knowing what others know is at the heart of this first step in the 
Knowledge Management Model. 

Knowing What We Know, Recruiting What We Don't 

One of the least discussed but more profound trends that is impacting 
policing in America, is the retirement of large groups of officers from 
the policing profession. This group of officers, who were hired in 
the sixties and seventies, are now eligible for retirement. This rather 
large cohort of police professionals will be leaving en masse over a 
relative short period of time. The impact of this cohort effect is the loss 
of a large body of professional knowledge and experience. Interim 
measures are currently being considered by state legislatures, such as 
California's proposition 350 which will allow retiring police personnel 
the option to collect both their retirement pensions and return to their 
departments for a specified period to stem the tide of this professional 
"brain drain". The leadership in the Redlands Police Department has 
recognized this problem and has crafted a portion of their Knowledge 
Management Initiative to address this issue over a long period of time. 

The RPD has started a two-step process called the Knowledge 
Inventory. Using a knowledge inventory form, supervisors will 
interview each of the personnel under their assigned areas and record 
the various skills, experience, and expertise of all the employees in 
the Department. The form collects information directly related to 
Department-sponsored training of its members as well as information 
about their non-traditional expertise. For example, the form asks 
members what licenses, certificates or ratings they hold that may or 
may not relate directly to their duties (e.g. scuba diving, martial arts, 
racing, etc,), what skills they may have that they feel proficient in 

(e.g. wood working, language skills, photography) and even asks what 
special talents they possess (e.g. musical, artistic, etc.). This data will 
be entered into a searchable data-base for use within the Department 
allowing others to identify and access their colleagues when there is a 
need for particular types of knowledge and experience. 


The second step in the process is to create a knowledge profile of 
the Department to determine the areas of knowledge strengths 
and weaknesses. This analysis will be conducted and then formally 
integrated into the recruitment and selection process for new 
personnel within the Department. Based upon the knowledge profile 
the Department can implement in an organizational engineering strategy 
(Pendleton, 1999) that would include targeted hiring and targeted 
training of personnel to fit the needs of the organization as a whole. 
As a starting point for both the assessment and subsequent selection 
of new employees, new candidates must demonstrate abilities in 
10 core competency areas that include a collaborative orientation, 
knowledge seeking, and a sense of vision, all of which 
support innovation. 

Knowing Who Knows Who: Case Knowledge Teams 

The leadership of the RPD has known for some time that the 
Department actually has much more data and knowledge stored 
than is ever harnessed for the delivery of police service. The 
underutilization of data is common in the policing profession and in 
many departments has rendered existing data banks as dustbins of data 
far removed from daily problem solving. The Community Analysis 
Unit (discussed below) of the RPD has reversed this professional 
phenomenon by making both the unit and existing data banks 
accessible. One innovative application of the data centers on knowing 
who in the Department has had contact with specific individuals and/ 
or places of interest in the delivery of police services. All reports 
and calls for service are stored in data banks as "event fields" that 
correspond to numerous characteristics of the case or event. Officers 
who want to know who in their department knows the people related 
to the case are harnessing this standard data acquisition and storage 
protocol. In some instances, investigators can actually identify in 
chronological sequence which of their colleagues has had contact with 
an individual of interest and then convene this group of officers for 
a discussion concerning the case. The searching of the Department 
data banks and creation of knowledge teams about cases is but one of 
several applications of the ability to identify and link police personnel 
to a wide range of case characteristics. Another innovative use of 
this data is to create "after action knowledge teams" which will be 
discussed below. 


Knowing Who Knows What: Utilizing Knowledge 
Management Vehicles 

The leadership of RPD recognized that most data systems in 
existence are not linked and most collaborative partners are not yet 
familiar with the notion that their data may be of extreme value to 
others and vice versa. For instance, the schools in the Redlands 
community have long collected data of at risk youth in the forms of 
suspensions and expulsions. But it was not until the East Valley went 
through the Communities That Care ® community building process, 
and introduced the Risk and Protective Focused Protection as a 
"community operating system" that school officials realized the police 
had a vested interest in student data. As a result, the school district 
reworked some of its data fields and now shares data with RPD. 

Using this community collaboration model, the RPD is utilizing its 
participation in the COMPASS initiative as a knowledge management 
vehicle for introducing the concept of integrated community data and 
learning what data these agencies and institutions have that already 
collaborate programmatically, but do not yet share data to identify 
and analyze problems related to public safety. This first step in the 
COMPASS process was a "stakeholder analysis" to identify and then 
approach over 34 entities spanning the criminal justice system, local 
governments, health care providers, housing officials, social service 
providers, schools, and other community based organizations to learn 
more specifically the nature of their data and the requirements for data 
sharing. This assessment will provide the first data framework for the 
COMPASS data system. 


STAGE II 

PACKAGING KNOWLEDGE: SHARING WHAT WE KNOW 

The second step in the Knowledge Management Model is packaging 
and sharing of knowledge to empower its application to problems 
and issues. The Redlands Police Department utilizes a range of 
approaches to sharing knowledge that, again, ranges from individual to 
community level applications. 

Organizational Knowledge Places 

The Department conference room has been selected as a repository 
for key articles, reports and other documents that provide a knowledge 
frame of reference for the organization. The conference library is 
more than just a place for information, it is a place that is purposefully 
intended to communicate very specific organizational messages. A 
memorandum from the Chief of Police entitled "Suggested Reading 
List" serves as a prelude and organizing document for the library. The 
defining nature of the library and related literature is clear: 

"It is my intention that we develop a common understanding 
of the organizational values that are important to the 
citizens of Redlands and the members of this department 
and that these values are reflected in our promotional 
processes. To this end, I have modified our existing 
Suggested Reading List to clarify our focus on critical values 
and beliefs. This list will serve as the official 'study guide' 
relating to the philosophical aspects of each promotional 
opportunity within the department. It will be modified 
annually to reflect the evolution of our understandings and 
the advances in these pertinent fields of study." 

The roster of 36 books and articles cover major topics such 
as Problem and Community Oriented Policing, Leadership, 
Organizational Change, and Creativity. Numerous articles in 
the library that promote innovation such as "How to Think Like 
An Innovator", "Managing Creativity", and "The Advantages of 
Partnering" signal and support the expectation of innovation and 
collaboration within the Department. Finally, historical documents 
that trace the development of organizational programs, structural 
changes and other key aspects of the Department are located in the 
conference room. Timely research documents, and publications of 
contemporary police articles along with monthly and annual reports 
are placed in the conference room library for easy reference. 


From Crime Analysis To Community Analysis: The Community 
Analysis Unit. As a result of innovation leadership the RPD has 
adopted the view that "crime" is more accurately a result of multiple 
social dynamics and that "crime analysis" should more appropriately 
be a subset of "community analysis." Based on this view, the RPD 
transformed and broadened its Crime Analysis Unit to become a 
Community Analysis Unit. The community analysis unit (CAU) 
plays a prominent role in the Department and is a place where 
data is transformed into knowledge. The CAU produces a set of 
standard monthly crime reports that are eventually compiled into a 
year-end report. These reports do much more than simply document 
Department crime activities, but go beyond to summarize significant 
events, repeat calls for services by each event, and trends over time. 
A central feature of the CAU is the production of crime maps 
using the latest crime mapping technology. The mapping function 
supports both standard report production and specialized knowledge 
management process such as COMSTAT and COMPASS, discussed 
below. The CAU is more than a function, however, it is also a 
knowledge place where people go to obtain specific analysis of data 
that can be used on specific projects, cases and issues at hand. The 
location of CAU near the investigative units seems to facilitate use, 
although it is reported that many officers request CAU assistance. 
Officers and other Department employees were observed constantly 
in the CAU offices working with the staff to develop additional 
knowledge on specific projects and cases. 

Knowledge Sharing Processes and Forums 

RPD has, for some time, recognized the importance of sharing 
knowledge, particularly between individuals within the Department. 
One approach to individual sharing has been the policy of mandatory 
"post conference" and/or training presentations to the Department. 
This policy requires employees attending conferences to make a formal 
presentation on the nature of the conference, including knowledge 
gained by the experience. These presentations can take many forms 
with no limits on the forums within which they occur, ranging from 
Department-wide presentations, to unit or squad based sharing of 
lessons learned and knowledge gained. 

Leadership Forums 

The unique structure of the RPD that includes the Housing and 
Recreation-Parks divisions of the City of Redlands creates a unique 
forum for knowledge sharing. Weekly leadership staff meetings 
include members from not just the police, but also directors of Parks 
and Recreation and Housing. Information is blended during these 
meetings to form a more global view of leadership issues that redefine 
classic crime and disorder issues into community safety and well being 
issues. This approach transforms information into knowledge that 
places arrest and other command and control approaches at the service 
of often, larger strategies that emphasize prevention. 


Tactical Forums 

The RPD is currently in the process of implementing a crime mapping 
based format for patrol shift briefings. The goal is to utilize data that 
is current within 3 hours, to map, analyze and discuss crime in the 
different geographic locations within Redlands. The standard shift 
briefing will be an analytical forum focused on projected maps, which 
will lead to discussions designed to inform patrol officer assignments 
across the City. While still in the formative stage, this approach to 
knowledge management will bring a new perspective to the traditional 
patrol briefing on crime and disorder data. 

Computer Statistics 

The RPD has also adopted the COMSTAT process to address 
large-scale crime and disorder issues. Initiated in New York City, 
COMSTAT (computerized statistics) places crime mapping in a 
'command and control' role. Mapping is used in conjunction with biweekly 
precinct meetings whereby the police commander is questioned 
on the nature of problems in their area and how they are responding. 
The COMSTAT process is conducted in an open forum and includes 
police command staff in a group setting. The G.I.S. presentation is a 
'real time' analysis enabling crime analysts to identify crime hotspots 
and convene a meeting to craft and explain proposed responses (Groff 
and LaVigne, 1998). 

COMSTAT in the RPD has just been initiated and is in its formative 
stages. The process is a facilitated review and discussion of projected 
maps and other crime data that is focused on a particular problem. 
Sworn police managers currently attend the process from the rank 
of sergeant and above, crime analysts, and specific employees that 
have a relevant role in the Department. One such employee is a state 
probation officer who is a member of the Department but carries 
a state caseload. This employee works closely with the police in the 
supervision and monitoring of known offenders that are living within 
the community. The COMSTAT process in Redlands is different 
than other programs as it places a higher value on creating knowledge 
about an issue over the heavy handed even demeaning approach 
to accountability that characterizes other such programs around 
the country. As this process is evolving the need for a much more 
structured and step-wise approach to the mapping and analysis of 
data has emerged along with the need for specific facilitation strategies 
during the process. 


COMPASS 

The sharing of knowledge that crosses organizational boundaries 
occurs freely in the RPD. The COMPASS process, which is also just 
in its formative stages, will include data from a wide range of agencies 
and their participation in the formation and implementation of the 
project. The plan for data sharing includes the formation of an 
"Information Management Committee" comprised of representatives 
from the Initiatives partners. The key to this collaborative partnership 
is in the unique nature of the long-term relationships among the 
participating partners, which is centered on trust and respect. 
Information Management Committee meetings will be an essential 
forum for crafting data sharing agreements, privacy protocols, and data 
use guidelines. 

East Valley Community Analysis Center (EVCAC) 

As part of the COMPASS process, the RPD will lead the way in 
developing the EVCAC. This center will be staffed full time to 
provide technical assistance to the members of the COMPASS project 
to facilitate timely exchange and analysis of COMPASS data. The 
purpose of the center will be to train and assist participants in the use 
of the COMPASS data. 

Redlands Neighborhood Improvement Teams (RNIT) 

The RNIT is a multidisciplinary team of City representatives that 
meet monthly to identify problems throughout Redlands that requires 
a "whole patient" approach to diagnosis and intervention. The 
RNIT consists of Community Policing Officers, Fire Inspectors, 
Code Enforcement Officers, Building and Safety Inspectors, the City 
Attorney, Housing Specialists, the Department Crime Analyst, and the 
Municipal Utilities Department. The RNIT meetings are used to both 
nominate and then share knowledge about a specific problem. Field 
tours of the problem location follow the initial meeting as a means 
to gain additional knowledge based upon the geographic space of the 
problem. A knowledge profile of the problem is crafted which then 
leads to interventions. 


Community Service Policy 

The RPD has implemented a policy that requires Department 
employees, Lieutenant rank and above, to join the board of directors 
of a community organization of their choice. This requirement 
is designed to not only provide service to the community, but to 
create linkages with community agencies to facilitate the sharing 
of knowledge and perspective on community issues. In effect, the 
community boardrooms become forums for sharing of knowledge 
across the entire community. 

Web-based Knowledge Forums 

The RPD has constructed a website that provides detailed information 
about the Department and its activities. A specific page has been 
devoted to CAU and provides the community with the ability to both 
view and/or request maps of crime and other police related activities 
throughout the community. The plan for the COMPASS project is 
to develop a "Citizens COMPASS" website that can be utilized using 
appropriate software to provide public access to community and public 
safety information deemed appropriate from the COMPASS data 
warehouse. Additional software and protocols will be provided to 
guide citizens in an intuitive approach to access and map 
COMPASS data. 


STAGE III 

APPLYING KNOWLEDGE: USING WHAT WE KNOW 

The central feature to the RPD's Risk Focused Policing is the 
application of knowledge to inform intervention and problem solving 
strategies. Indeed, the ultimate purpose of Knowledge Management 
is not simply to make knowledge available, but to apply it to reach 
organizational objectives (Williams, 2001). In this case, the application 
of knowledge is focused on both external public safety problems, as 
well as internal organizational issues. 

Applying Knowledge To Morph the Organization 

As indicated earlier, the RPD is basing future recruiting and hiring 
decisions, in part, on the existing and desired knowledge inventory 
within the Police Department. One example of this process has been 
the recent hiring of a correctional probation officer as a member of 
the Department. It was determined that one approach to addressing 
the chronic offender was to link correctional probation officer 
knowledge with police knowledge. This employee carries a caseload 
of convicted offenders that have been released back into the Redlands 
community. In addition to providing guidance to the offenders, the 
officer also monitors their location and behavior. As an employee 
of the Department, the officer meets regularly with police officers to 
assist in crime analysis (see COMSTAT discussion below) to determine 
the relationship between offender behavior and current public 
safety problems. 

Resource Allocation 

One of the central features of Risk Focused Policing is the use of 
Geographic Information System software to map community risk 
factors to identify those neighborhoods with highest risk profiles and 
effectively focus on those areas with the greatest potential for change. 
Based upon this information, strategies have been developed to both 
prevent problems as well as to respond to problems. Recreation 
programs, under the control of the Police Department, are now taken 
into these neighborhoods, and a police officer is now assigned to 
drug court to assist with effective parental involvement. In addition 
the crime mapping G.I.S. system, has resulted in the Department 
eliminating static patrol districts traditionally utilized in the allocation 
of police patrols. Based upon crime mapping data, street level 
supervisors now establish street patrol assignments to fit the 
ever-changing crime map. 


Crime and Disorder Applications 

The application of Knowledge Management processes is evolving in 
the RPD. The use of both internal and cross boundary knowledge 
management vehicles such as COMSTAT, and COMPASS are in 
various stages of development. 

• 
COMSTAT 
Although the COMSTAT process is just in its development 
stage, it has been used to address persistent crime trends. One 
such application was focused on the problem of commercial 
burglaries. The CAU unit completed a series of standard analysis 
of this rash of burglaries and a COMSTAT forum was convened 
to analyze, discuss, and then craft an intervention to apprehend 
the offenders. The presentation included location, time of day, 
and other standard crime analysis assessments. The facilitated 
discussion including over 20 officers probed the nature of the 
crimes to include a discussion led by the RPD probation officer 
on the possible role of known offenders in the community. Based 
upon the analysis and discussion, patrol officer special assignments 
were crafted to optimize the potential of apprehending and/or 
preventing the suspects from continuing the trend. 
• 
COMPASS 
While still in its developmental stage at the time of this research, 
the RPD's selection as a COMPASS site is based, in part, on 
the commitment to identify a problem to be solved by using the 
COMPASS process. Once again, the guide for this effort is the 
RPD's Risk Focused Policing, which is centered on 
solving problems 



STAGE IV 

CREATING KNOWLEDGE: INCREASING WHAT WE KNOW 

A critical component of the Police Knowledge Management Model 
is creating new knowledge. This commitment to increasing what 
we know is clearly evident in both the philosophy and practice of 
the Redlands Police Department. Creating knowledge in the RPD 
includes both learning from experience and from involvement in an 
independent research process. 

Experience as Research and Development 

There has been a long-standing police tradition of valuing experience. 
This tradition has been focused upon individuals and the experience 
they gain throughout their careers. More recently, there has been a 
recognition that organizations can also learn from experience if they 
have a commitment to continuous improvement. The Redlands Police 
Department is actively involved in creating knowledge in both of 
these areas. 

Creating Knowledge Depth and Knowledge Breadth 

The value of police experience, at the individual level, has been diluted 
over time by a primary focus on the general principal that time in the 
profession equates automatically to expertise. This view has failed 
to take into account that the road to promotion has featured a 'get 
your ticket punched" approach to career development. The effect has 
been to create, in many police departments, a cadre of dilatant's who 
have a breath of experience as they move rapidly through assignment, 
but no depth. RPD recognized this problem and has implemented a 
'time in assignment' policy that requires officers who are promoted or 
assigned to a specific role, to remain in that role a minimum of 3 years 
and no more than 5. This policy has been implemented to assure that 
employees acquire both knowledge depth and breadth. 

Creating Knowledge Linkage 

RPD has also addressed the problem of knowledge silos. When 
officers transfer to another assignment they take with them all the 
experience and specific knowledge gained in their past assignment. To 
address this problem, RPD has a transition management protocol that 
requires transition assessments and briefings between the outgoing 
and incoming employees to a particular position. This process is 
designed to create both an understanding of the issues at hand but 
also a working relationship between the employees based on the 
understanding that they can call when experiential knowledge would 
inform subsequent efforts to manage issues. 


After Action Reviews 

One of the nine principles of management adopted by the RPD is 
creating a learning organization by seeking new knowledge as the 
result reviewing and assessing organizational activities and events. 
Accordingly, the RPD has developed an After Action Review process 
to learn from key events that occur within the organization. An After 
Action Review Form has been created that provides a basic outline 
of the information needed to learn from an event. A synopsis of the 
event is created to include descriptive information (time, location etc.). 
Key questions guide the process such as, what did we do right? What 
could we do better next time? How do we share this learning? One 
of the constraints on this process is the legal liability and the related 
personnel actions that often accompany reviews of difficult actions. 
These constraints often impede a complete and full understanding of 
an event (Pendleton, 2002) because of legal and personnel exposure. 
Redlands has recognized these constraints and is developing protocols 
to limit exposure to the Department and its personnel. 

Creating Knowledge Through Research 

The recent period of police innovation has been a journey from a 
closed profession with little research involvement, to being the subject 
of research, to being a partner with researchers. The next logical step 
in the police research experience is to move into a leading role, where 
the police conduct their own original research (Pendleton, 2002). 
It is important to note that the Risk Focused Policing context for 
innovation within the RPD is grounded in a long program of research 
and features a research component in virtually all of the process 
related to its application. The RPD has been involved in both local and 
national research projects and as part of the Knowledge Management 
Initiative, there are plans to either employ or retain a 
department researcher. 

• The Innovation Exchange 
The leadership of the RPD has recognized the opportunity to 
learn from other organizations and the expense associated with 
"re-inventing the wheel". While many police organizations are 
plagued with a bias of rejecting others approaches because it 
was "not invented here", that is not the case in Redlands. The 
leadership of RPD has sponsored and implemented a program 
called the Innovation Exchange. This is a collaborative program 
involving the law enforcement agencies of San Bernardino 
County. The purpose of the program is to allow employees from 
each of the participating departments to conduct a site visit to 
any department for 5-6 hours to observe how other departments 
operate and/or provide law enforcement services in areas that 
have been problematic in the employees department. The intent 
is to maintain "our competitive edge" by discovering how "our 
colleagues" are doing things better than "we are". Employees are 


specifically instructed to abandon the mind set that "I know we 
do this better than they do" but to focus how "they do things 
better than we do". The program material provides a guide of 
potential areas for examination to help employees focus on 
specific areas during the observation. 

• The Staff Researcher 
Historically, police have partnered with researchers at universities 
and other research organizations. Redlands has had a long 
history of work with both the local University of Redlands, and 
other organizations like the police foundation. The COMPASS 
project has a research component in which the RPD and other 
participants will participate as partners. However, the leadership 
of the RPD see the need for taking the lead on research and are 
making plans to address this need. Currently, the Department is 
planning to employ an "in house" Ph.D. researcher to conduct 
police research. While the specifics of this role and the type 
of research to be conducted is currently being developed, it is 
clear that the purpose is to create both an R& D function within 
the Department, as well as taking a lead in conducting original 
research applicable to the larger police profession. 

INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 

Data from this case study adds to our understanding of organizational 
innovation in policing and also provides additional insight into the 
nature of the Knowledge Management Innovation. The adoption 
of the Knowledge Management Initiative is related to the specific 
leadership of the Chief of Police, the organizational philosophy and 
structure of the Department, and the desire to collaborate effectively 
with the community within which RPD is located. The adoption 
of the Knowledge Management innovation, however, was not just a 
response to a specific need or problem to be solved, but also to the 
more global goal of being an innovator. In effect, the potential of 
the Knowledge Management innovation as an overt or purposeful 
management strategy was recognized as a way for the organization to 
effectively institutionalize its core values and beliefs about 
being innovative. 


In some respects, this case departs from other research on 
organizational innovation. In the vast majority of research the 
size of an organization has consistently been positively related to 
innovativeness. Larger organizations are more innovative (Rogers, 
1995, pp. 379), yet the Redlands Police Department can be considered 
to be a medium to small police organization. In this respect, data 
from this case study may usefully be applied to distinguish the 
difference between the initiation phase of the innovation process and the 
implementation phase. In this case, the data suggest that Innovation 
Leadership is weighted toward initiation of innovation, while a balance 
between initiation and actual implementation may actually better serve 
Organizational Innovativeness. 

INNOVATION LEADERSHIP AND THE INITIATION OF INNOVATION 

Innovation Leadership As Opportunistic Surveillance 

It is common for innovative organizations to engage in what is termed 
opportunistic surveillance by scanning the environment for new ideas 
that might benefit the organization (Rogers, 1995, pp 393). One 
characteristic of innovation leadership is the active seeking of awareness 
knowledge. Rogers (1995, pp 165) notes that the first step in the 
innovation decision process is either an awareness of the need for an 
innovation or the awareness of an innovation. Awareness knowledge 
soon blends with what Rogers terms "how to" and "principles" 
knowledge and together creates a knowledge management role for the 
innovator as the process of innovation progresses through its various 
stages (Rogers, 1995) 

In this case, the discovery of the Police Knowledge Management 
Model occurred because the Chief of Police was alert to new 
innovations. Rogers (1995) terms these surveillance behaviors 
as cosmopolitan in nature, which take the Chief far outside the 
organizational boundaries of the police department. Innovation 
leaders, like the Redlands Chief of Police, are characterized by vibrant 
communication networks that include a high degree of exposure to 
mass media, extensive interpersonal contacts, internet connectivity, 
and a range of other activities that place them at the forefront of 
knowledge about new ideas (Rogers, 1995; Weisburd, 2001). Data 
from this study show that a long-standing interpersonal network of 
multi-discipline leaders within the Redlands community facilitates 
many of the Knowledge Management activities. This network 
is characterized by collaboration, mutual trust, and joint efforts 
at problem solving within the community. Both the Chief and 
numerous members of the RPD are members in this vibrant network. 
Accordingly, data from this study demonstrates a willingness to 
successfully appropriate ideas from a variety of sectors within 
the network. 


The Innovation Champion and The re-invention of innovation 

A central factor to innovation process within organizations is the role 
of an Innovation Champion. The innovation champion is often the 
most powerful person in the organization such as a CEO, or in this 
case the Chief of Police. An innovation Champion can champion a 
specific innovation and/or create an organizational environment that 
nurtures innovation (Rogers, 1995). Data from this case study show 
that the Chief of Police was active in both respects. 

The Chief did more than simply discover and adopt the Police 
Knowledge Management Model; he re-invented it to fit the nature 
of the Redlands Police Department. Termed the RPD's Knowledge 
Management Initiative, the original innovation was reinvented to both 
organize and link what had been separate activities, to capture, share, 
apply and create knowledge as a means to advance the organizations 
commitment to innovation. Specifically, the Knowledge Management 
Initiative stressed the linkage between components of the model, and 
how activities in one area would segway into activities in another. This 
re-invention process is common particularly among "loosely bundled 
innovations" like the Police Knowledge Management Model because 
of the inherent flexibility for adaptation to suit the unique conditions 
of the adopters (Rogers, 1995, pp. 178). 

The Innovation Champion, Organizational Engineering and the 
Decision To Adopt 

In organizations, the decision to adopt an innovation can be 
characterized be the number of individuals making the decision 
and the degree to which the decision is mandatory or optional 
(Rogers, 1995). In this case, the decision to adopt the Knowledge 
Management Innovation was made by the Chief to advance his vision 
of innovation within the organization. While the power to make 
organizational decisions is inherent in the role of Police Chief, without 
an organizational recognition of the Chief's innovation expertise 
both the desire to innovate and the implementation of innovation 
would be seriously undermined. In part, the "authority 
innovation-decision" (Rogers, 1995, pp 372) is possible because of 
the Chief's past success as an innovation leader. The successful reorganization 
of the police department to subsume the parks-recreation 
and housing functions in the city to facilitate the full application of the 
COP and POP innovations is both locally and nationally recognized as 
a unique accomplishment. The adoption of the Risk Focused Policing, 
which is also recognized nationally as unique within the profession, has 
led to a wide variety of innovations such as enhanced crime mapping, 
and the COMPASS project that have advanced the organization. 
These past accomplishments have combined to generate an influx of 
federal grant funds to further advance the development of the police 
department. 


It is important to note, however, that the Knowledge Management 
Initiative is, in part, designed to shape the nature of the police 
department. As an organizational development tool, the Knowledge 
Inventory will be used to recruit and hire future police personnel 
while the Innovation Exchange is designed to advance the operations 
of the organization. The restructuring of the RPD to accommodate 
COP and POP innovations is consistent with other knowledge-centric 
recommendations for changing police department structure. Such 
ideas include turning Research and Grants Units in police departments 
into Research and Development Sections (Pendleton, 2000a) and 
changing the traditional police "training officer" into an Organizational 
Development Administrator (Pendleton, 1999). Both of these 
functions would report directly to the Chief of Police to facilitate an 
organization that is intrinsically innovative. 

Organizational Innovativeness and the Implementation of 
Knowledge Management 

As a social system, organizations provide the context within which 
organizational innovation occurs. Data from this case study show 
that the context for the Knowledge Management innovation in the 
RPD can be viewed as a three-part system that progresses from a 
general to specific orientation to innovation see Figure 2 on next 
page. The organizational context for innovation in the Redlands Police 
Department is fundamentally established as a general philosophy that 
is articulated in the written value and belief statements. A second 
tier of context is the defined operational philosophy of Risk Focused 
Policing that determines and empowers the organizational structure of 
the police department. Finally, the specific innovation of Knowledge 
Management along with others, are initiated within this context, but 
more importantly are measured within the criteria established by these 
organizational frames of reference. While the general organizational 
philosophy establish the expectation of innovation, the specific 
operational philosophy determines the nature of innovation. 


Figure 2 

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OF INNOVATION 

“THE EXPECTATION TO INNOVATE” 
General Organizational Philosophy of Innovation 
Established In Articulated Values and Beliefs 
(Organizational Mission and Belief Statements) 

“THE INVITATION TO INNOVATE” 
Organizational Operational Philosophy of Innovation: 
Risk Focused Policing 

“THE INNOVATION EVENT” 
Adoption of Specific Innovation: 
Knowledge Management Initiative That 
Operationally Integrated 


Beyond Initiation: The Implementation of Innovation 

Rogers has noted the importance of distinguishing between the 
initiation phase of innovation and the implementation phase. Many 
of the same factors that actually facilitate initiation in organizations 
can operate to defeat implementation of the innovation (Rogers, 
1995, 381). In this study, the adoption of the Police Knowledge 
Management Model is too new to determine the final adoption 
outcomes. Yet the nature of the Knowledge Management Initiative 
as a cluster innovation that links both existing activities with new 
knowledge management activities suggest a strong likely hood that the 
activities in the model will ultimately be developed and utilized. 

There is data, however, that suggests the implementation process will 
be impacted by limited resources and in particular the time necessary 
for implementation. Several organizational participants interviewed 
in this study noted that the organization is involved in so many 
innovative activities that there is a backlog of work to be accomplished 
to implement the innovations. In effect, the ability to implement is 
being outdistanced by the ability to fund and initiate innovations. In 
part, this may be the outcome of the "authority innovation-decision" 
style that can translate newly discovered innovations into directives, 
but without sufficient uncommitted resources, the innovations must 
wait in an implementation "take-off line" before becoming operational. 
The results of several organizational innovation studies show that the 
degree of organizational slack, or uncommitted resources is a causal 
factor in high levels of organizational innovativeness 
(Rogers, 1995, pp381). 

As other Knowledge Management activities were being launched, 
several "bugs" have been identified that need to be addressed before 
meaningful implementation is possible. For example, the use of crime 
mapping in briefings and as a daily staffing tool has been limited by 
the time required to utilize the technology. In addition, the analytical 
facilitation process that was utilized in the COMSTAT process was 
awkward and needed refinement. These issues were being address as 
this study was being conducted. 

Finally, as is the case with many cluster innovations, the 
implementation of one suggests the need for yet another. As the 
various components of the Knowledge Management Initiative have 
been linked, there is a clear need for an integration of the various 
components of the model. This integration model is currently being 
designed as an outcome of this research, and will feature a process that 
links, COMPASS, COMSTAT, Investigative Unit Analysis and Shift 
Briefings. In addition, there is a clear need for an Investigative Unit 
Knowledge Management Problem Solving Model that uses a four part 
strategy to address crime and disorder under consideration. 


Data from this study has also provided a more specific understanding 
of Knowledge Management as a purposeful strategy within a police 
organization. Data suggest the importance of understanding and 
managing the linkage of the various components of a Knowledge 
Management strategy. Specifically, the Knowledge Management 
Initiative in the RPD illustrates the importance role of Knowledge 
Management packages. 

Knowledge Management Process as Vehicles of Innovation 

A fundamental feature of the RPD's Knowledge Management 
Initiative is the packaging of the knowledge management process 
within programs or projects. Several programs such as COMPASS, 
COMSTAT, RNIT, and After Action Reviews are utilized as 
knowledge management vehicles that create an occasion and processes 
for implementing one or more features of the Police Knowledge 
Management Model. In the case of COMPASS all of the components 
of the Knowledge Management Model are contained in the project, 
while others like After Action Reviews focus only a particular part of 
the model. Again, COMPASS is perhaps the complete Knowledge 
Management Vehicle not only because it contains all four of the 
elements of Knowledge Management, but its process is also designed 
to traverse agenda setting, matching, restructuring, clarifying and 
achieving a level of routine operation, that are the five stages of the 
organizational innovation process (Rogers, 1995,pp 392). 

Knowledge Management Places 

This study has also demonstrated that Knowledge Management is 
not just a process but it also can be a place. The RPD Library and 
the CAU office area are places in the organization where knowledge 
"happens". The linkage of the library with the conference room is 
interesting as it has both a static feel of a repository of documented 
organizational knowledge, but also a dynamic quality where decisions 
are made by putting knowledge into action. 

In the case of the CAU, its central function, combined with its location 
in a pathway, facilitates the "place" nature of knowledge. Unlike the 
conference room, where one must "belong" in meetings, CAU is 
a completely open place where anyone can go during all hours of 
operation. As the Department becomes increasingly knowledge-centric it 
is likely that the CAU will become more of a gathering place as its role 
becomes increasingly more prominent. 


It is also possible, however, that the knowledge places of the future 
for the RPD may be more individualized as web-based and other 
computer technologies are utilized to store data and create knowledge. 
Such a possibility seems to highlight the importance, or not, of an 
interpersonal process in the development of knowledge. During this 
study, numerous "spontaneous discussions" were observed between 
the staff of the CAU and officers around the meaning of data and its 
ultimate application. This iterative exchange seemed vital to both an 
understanding of information and its ultimate application. This same 
exchange was observed as a critical component of the COMSTAT 
process and in the COMPASS project (Pendleton, 2002a, Pendleton, 
1999), although in both cases was viewed as a weak area in need 
of development. 

CONCLUSION 

This study suggests that the police innovator is more than an 
individual who is intrigued with new ideas, but is an organizational 
place where innovation happens. In this respect, the organization 
becomes known as the innovator where leadership is but one part of 
a larger innovation system. Knowledge Management, as a purposeful 
organizational strategy, is more than an innovation in itself, but is 
a fundamental part of the innovation process that is essential to 
sustaining an organizational culture that is based in innovation. 
The study also indicates that the next step in police Knowledge 
Management is to address the need to integrate the various KM 
techniques into an interrelated system. Such a system would link 
very specific crime type analysis with daily patrol strategies, monthly 
COMSTAT process and the larger COMPASS process that extends 
beyond the boundaries of the police department. Such a system is 
currently being designed and will be the focus of the next paper from 
the on going study of Knowledge Management in Policing. 


REFERENCES 

Atkinson, P. and Hamersley, M. (1994) 'Ethnography and participant 
observation. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Norman Denzin 
and Yvonna Lincoln, pp 248-261. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Bueermann, J. (2000) 'Neighborhood Safety with Risk Focused 
Policing', The Neighborhood Works Journal. 18 (2): 25-31. 

Geller, W. and Swanger, G. (1995) Managing Innovation In Policing: The 
Untapped Potential of the Middle Manager, Washington, D.C.: Police 
Executive Research Forum. 

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill 
Publishing Company. 

Gore, C. and Gore, E. (1999) 'Knowledge Management: the way 
forward' Total Quality Management July, 554-560. 

Groff, E. and LaVigne, N. (1998) 'The Use of Geographic 
Information Systems (G.I.S.) For State and Local Crime Analysis' 
Presented at the Conference of European Statisticians, Ottowa, 
Canada, October, 5-7, 1998. 

Hansen, M., Nohria, N., Tierney, T. (1999) 'What's Your Strategy For 
Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review 77 (2): 106-112. 

Hickins, M. (1999) 'Xerox Shares Its KNOWLEDGE', Management 
Review, September: 40-45. 

Malcolm, A. (1989) 'Cities try out new approach to police work', New 
York Times, March 29. 

Pendleton, M. (1999) "Understanding Organizational Change: The 
Achilles Heel of the Contemporary Executive". Presented at an 
Executive Leadership Seminar for the Washington State Criminal 
Justice Training Commission, April 22nd, 1999 

Pendleton, M (2001). 'Charting a Course: Innovation Amidst the 
Perfect Storm'. Presented at the Annual Conference on Criminal 
Justice Research and Evaluation: Enhancing Police and Practice. 
Washington D.C., July 22-25, 2001. 

Pendleton, M. (2002) 'On The Threshold Of An Innovation: Police 
And The Management Of Knowledge'. 


Rogers, E. (1993) 'Diffusion and the Re-invention of Project D.A.R.E.', 
in Thomas E. Backer and Everett M. Rogers (eds.), Organizational 
Aspects of Health Communication Campaigns: What Works? Newbury Park, 
CA, Sage, pp. 139-162. 

Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: The 
Free Press. 

Weisburd, D. (2001) 'Translating Research Into Practice: Reflections on 
the Diffusion of Crime Mapping Innovation'. Presented at the Fifth 
Annual International Crime Mapping Research Conference. National 
Institute of Justice. 

Wilson, J Q., and Kelling, G. 'Making neighborhoods safe". The Atlantic 
Monthly, 134: 46-52. 


APPENDIX ONE 

DATA COLLECTION QUESTIONS 

I. CAPTURING WHAT WE KNOW 

1. 
Do you use a "yellow paging" system for tracking and sharing 
employee expertise, experience, 
training etc.? Is it indexed and searchable? How does it work? 
2. 
Do you use a searchable data base system for entering, indexing 
and searching documents 
related to specific police projects such as problem solving, 
neighborhood improvement teams, etc.? How does it work? 
3. 
Do you use computer-based technology such as Lotus Notes, 
Intraspect, or other programs to 
record, track and re-use documents, e-mails etc.? 
4. 
What face-to-face protocols are used to share information? 
5. 
Is there a formal personnel transfer/transition protocol to pass 
along learning/information/knowledge? 
6. 
Do you have a mentoring program? 
7. 
Other questions as identified through a collaborative process with 
the department. 


II. SHARING WHAT WE KNOW 

8. 
Do you use intranet communication/chat rooms/communities of 
interest to share knowledge 
among members of the department? Nature of this system? 
9. 
Do you use Lotus or some other e-mail mapping system or other 
systems to establish 
communities of interest? Nature of this system?


10. 
Do you use a COMSTAT process? Nature of this process? 
11. 
How does CAU share data? 
12. 
Do you have web-based access of police data for the public? 
Nature of this system? 
13. 
What are other formal and the informal ways that knowledge 
is shared? 
14. 
How are you linked to other city departments/agencies to share 
knowledge? 
15. 
Other questions as identified through a collaborative process with 
the department. 



III. USING WHAT WE KNOW 

16. 
Does the department use the COMSTAT process to determine 
tactical and/or policy 
responses? Nature of this process? 
17. 
What is the role of CAU and crime mapping in determining 
tactical and/or policy decisions? 
18. 
Does the department have a systematic way to search, review and 
use prior efforts, solutions, research, evaluations, approaches etc. 
in specific areas to inform current-future policy-tactical decisions? 
Nature of this system? 
19. 
How will/does COMPASS propose to use cross organizational 
data/processes to address 
selected issues? 
20. 
What is/will be the police role in the COMPASS project/process? 
21. 
Other questions as identified through a collaborative process with 
the department. 


IV. INCREASING WHAT WE KNOW 

22. 
Is there a systematic sharing of individual based knowledge such 
as performance analysis, conference report backs, problem solving 
debriefs and solution sharing etc.? Nature of these efforts? 
23. 
What formal problem solving assessment protocols exist and how 
are they applied and shared? 
24. 
Is the organization actively involved in professional research? 
Nature of the involvement? 
25. 
How will the efforts of the COMPASS project be documented 
and shared? 
26. 
How is existing research in the police and related fields utilized to 
inform on going and future tactical and policy issues? 
27. 
Is/how are assessment efforts used in the COMSTAT process? 
28. 
Is there a critical incident and/or case study review process used 
within the organization? 
29. 
What is the relationship between the knowledge community 
(universities, private sector, etc.)? 
30. 
How is city-community wide department/agency integration 
utilized to create knowledge, learning and additional understanding 
within the police department? 
31. 
Other questions as identified through a collaborative process with 
the department. 



CHAPTER 3 

CREATING AN INNOVATION-CENTRIC POLICE DEPARTMENT: GUIDELINES 
FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN POLICING 

By Michael R. Pendleton Ph.D. and T. Dave Chavez, Jr., MS. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

If the police profession is to remain relevant to the challenges of the 
future, a more innovation-centric approach to organizational design and 
process may be required. One approach and supporting guidelines for 
designing an innovative police organization are offered. Specifically, 
this paper advances twelve guidelines for adopting and implementing 
Knowledge Management (KM) as an organizational development and 
management strategy for innovation in a police organization. These 
guidelines are based upon an extensive body of research of innovation 
and recent research on the nature of Knowledge Management and 
its potential application in the police profession. The guidelines are 
presented as a five part purposeful organizational strategy focused 
on: A.) Creating an Environment for Organizational Innovation; B.) 
Capturing Knowledge and Knowing What we Know; C.) Packaging 
Knowledge and Sharing What we Know; D.) Applying Knowledge 
and Using What We Know; and E.) Creating Knowledge and 
Increasing What We Know. Knowledge Management, as a purposeful 
organizational strategy, is more than an innovation in itself, but is 
a fundamental part of the innovation process that is essential to 
sustaining an organizational culture that is based in innovation. If the 
police profession is to sustain its position on the "cutting edge" of 
innovation, there is a need to integrate the various KM techniques into 
an interrelated system within the police department framework. 


CREATING AN INNOVATION-CENTRIC POLICE DEPARTMENT:
GUIDELINES FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN POLICING


It is surprising, in an era of unprecedented innovation, that it is 
suggested that American police departments are showing signs of 
resisting innovation and change (Weisburd, 2001). While this view 
may seem to support conventional views of the police profession as 
intransigent and monolithic, it is inconsistent with the recent history 
of policing. Since 1990, the police profession has been immersed in 
innovation. Defined as a "philosophical revolution" (Malcolm, 1989) 
and the "most significant redefinition of police work in the past half 
century" (Wilson and Kelling, 1989) Community Oriented Policing 
and Problem Oriented Policing have become the dominant approaches 
to policing. Fueled by a crisis in policing these philosophical 
innovations along with management innovations such as COMSTAT 
and technological innovations such as crime mapping, have vaulted the 
police profession to the "cutting edge of criminal justice innovation" 
(Weisburd, 2001, pp 22). How then, could such a transformation 
be reversed? 

David Weisburd (2001) has argued that such a reversal may be the 
result of declining crime rates and research evidence indicating 
police success in addressing crime and disorder. This view suggests 
that the crime and disorder problem is no longer the problem it 
once was to police. In effect, there is no longer a need to innovate. 
While aggregate measures of crime might suggest the police have 
mastered their craft, the relentless occurrence of high profile events 
sustains quite an opposite view. The 9-11 (2001) World Trade Center 
catastrophes, the Washington D.C. sniper, WTO riots and other high 
profile events are but a few of the on-going reminders that policing 
is an ever changing environment requiring a constant commitment 
to innovation. An alternative view of why police might appear 
less committed to innovation may be found not in what causes an 
organization to be innovative, but in the distinction between adopting 
innovation and implementing innovation. 


Over the last fifty years, the interest in innovation has exploded to 
make this area of research one of the most comprehensive fields 
of behavioral science study in history (Rogers, 1995 pp. xv). One 
outcome of thousands of studies has been the clear finding that 
innovation occurs as a process with distinct stages or phases. The 
innovation process in an organization is a five-stage process that 
is broadly segmented into two areas that focus upon initiation and 
implementation. This process begins and is subsequently advanced 
by the acquisition and use of knowledge and is formally known as 
the Knowledge Stage (Rogers, 1995). Discovery of innovations 
require organizations to constantly scan their environment to create 
awareness knowledge as the first step in the organizational innovation 
process. Implementation of an innovation requires "how to" 
knowledge especially in the case of complex innovations. While most 
organizations focus upon developing awareness knowledge, "how 
to" knowledge is essential to effective implementation of innovation 
(Rogers, 1995, pp 166). 

Absent organizational structures and processes that facilitate 
innovation, organizations can operate in ways that defeat innovation, 
often at the implementation stage (Van de Ven and Rogers 1988)). 
Such may be the case with recent police innovations such as 
Community Oriented Policing and COMSTAT type accountability 
programs where there are indications that these innovations struggle 
to move beyond rhetoric (decision to adopt) to reality (meaningful 
implementation) (Pendleton 2002,Weisburd et.a.l, 2001, Pendleton, 
1999, Taylor, Fritsch and Caeti 1998). In effect, police resistance 
to innovation may be more the result of inattention to building 
organizational policy and processes that effectively link the initiation 
and implementation process of innovation. If the police profession is 
to remain relevant to the challenges of the future, a more innovation-
centric approach to organizational design and process may be required. 

The purpose of this paper is to offer one approach and supporting 
guidelines for designing an innovative police organization. Specifically, 
this paper advances twelve guidelines for adopting and implementing 
Knowledge Management as an organizational development and 
management strategy for innovation in a police organization. These 
guidelines are based upon an extensive body of research of innovation 
and recent research on the nature of Knowledge Management and its 
potential application in the police profession (Rogers, 1995: Pendleton, 
2002; Pendleton and Bueermann, 2003). 


INNOVATION AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:
BUILDING AN INNOVATIVE POLICE DEPARTMENT


Arguably, the most neglected topic in the recent era of police 
innovation has been the central role of "knowledge". This omission 
is significant for at least two reasons. First, knowledge and its 
management, is consistently viewed as a "bed rock necessity" for 
innovation in police problem solving (Geller and Swanger, 1995 pp 
154). Herman Goldstein, in his seminal work on Problem Oriented 
Policing (POP) consistently emphasized the critical role of knowledge 
to the problem solving approach. Goldstein (1990) noted the 
difficulties of tapping implicit knowledge "stored in the minds of rank 
and file police officers" to analyze problems (pp 93), the importance 
of sharing knowledge with citizens as one aspect of solving problems 
(pp 114), the lack of a "tradition of proceeding logically from 
knowledge gained…to the fashioning of an appropriate response" 
(pp 15), and the importance of creating new knowledge through self 
critique (pp15) cross system knowledge sharing (pp 168-171) and 
research (pp 171-172). Quite simply, the management of knowledge is 
at the heart of Problem Oriented Policing. 

Second, the recent adoption of innovations in policing, have 
followed rapidly growing trends that are knowledge-centric. Such 
trends include the expansions in computer based technology that 
facilitates processing and accessing vast amount of information 
to facilitate "data driven" decision making (Anselin, et.al., 2000). 
Tactical innovations have been implemented based upon the growth 
of knowledge about "what works" in addressing crime and disorder 
(Braga, 2001, Sherman, et.al., 1998), and the trend of research based 
knowledge dissemination which has been a central factor in the 
diffusion of police innovations (Weisburd, 2001). 

The knowledge-centric nature of recent police innovations, clearly 
establishes the need for Knowledge Management as an innovation 
in and of its self. While Knowledge Management (KM) has been 
recognized as an innovation in the private sector (Hansen, et. al. 1999, 
Gore and Gore, 1999, Hickins, 1999), it is only now emerging in 
the police profession. Pendleton (2002,) in his study of knowledge 
management in policing has developed a model that identifies and 
links the initiation and implementation phases of innovation through 
the management of knowledge. Police knowledge management is 
a loosely bundled but interconnected set of management activities 
designed to capitalize on the intellectual assets of the police workforce 
(Pendleton, 2002). Knowledge management in this model is defined 
as a five part purposeful organizational strategy that is designed to: 


1.) Create an Innovation Environment
2.) 


Capture Knowledge
3.) 


Package-Share Knowledge
4.) 


Apply Knowledge
5.) 


Create Knowledge 

Knowledge Management is not a passive activity, but is a set of 
organizational design features and processes that are integrally 
related to organizational activities. This model recognizes that police 
departments contain vast amounts of untapped, often specialized, 
knowledge and routinely create knowledge through organizational 
action that is vital to successfully addressing contemporary public 
safety challenges. Knowledge management is all about having the ability to 
share that specialized knowledge when another member of the organization 
needs it. Quite simply, knowledge is viewed as an asset. One of the 
fundamental tasks of this model is to transform tacit knowledge, 
obscured within or around the organization, to explicit knowledge 
available for use and application. 

Tacit knowledge has "an important cognitive dimension. It consists of 
mental models, beliefs, and perspectives so ingrained we take them 
for granted, and, therefore, cannot easily articulate. These implicit 
models shape how we perceive the world around us" (Nonaka, 1999). 
Tacit knowledge has tremendous value for others in an organization 
because it represents expertise. When less experienced, skilled and 
knowledgeable employees have access to the tacit knowledge of experts 
and experienced specialists, they can perform at the level of those 
experts more often and more effectively (Bukowitz and Williams, 
1999). Tacit knowledge can be shared either by being converted into 
explicit knowledge (e.g., a set of policies and procedures, or a set 
of documented facts) and documented, or through transfer as tacit 
knowledge, for example through a mentor, on the job training, 
or apprenticeships. 


Known as an innovation cluster (Rogers, 1995), the four-part police 
knowledge management model provides a useful framework for 
understanding how knowledge can be purposefully managed to 
promote innovation in public safety organizations 
(see Figure 1 below). 

Figure 1. 

POLICE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MODEL 

I. Capturing Knowledge 
“Knowing What We Know” 

II.Processing Knowledge 
“Sharing What We Know” 

III. Applying Knowledge 
“Using What We Know” 

IV. Creating Knowledge 
“Increasing What We Know” 


GUIDELINES FOR CREATING THE ENVIRONMENT 
FOR ORGANIZATIONAL INNOVATION 

Organizational innovation occurs for two reasons, crisis and/or a 
natural interest in being innovative Rogers (1995). In a crisis situation, 
such as that facing the police in the 1980's, organizations need to 
be innovative at least until the problems are solved. In this case, 
innovation is viewed more as an outcome or product. While police 
departments may have adopted recent innovations because they need to, 
the relative rapidity of the adoption of recent innovations (Weisburd, 
2001, Weisburd et.al. 2001) and emergence of intrinsically innovative 
police organizations (Pendleton, 2002) also suggest a growing natural 
interest in innovation. Some police departments now want to be 
innovative because of their natural interest and view innovation as an 
on-going process that is reflected in organizational values, leadership, 
and structure. In this respect, the organizational environment is 
specifically designed to provide an established context for innovation. 
In effect, the organization becomes an innovation environment. 

GUIDELINE ONE: FORMALLY ADOPT AND PROMOTE AN ORGANIZATIONAL 
MISSION AND VALUES THAT FACILITATE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 

The literature and research data clearly establish the fundamental role 
of organizational values that facilitate rather than impede knowledge 
management. By formally adopting organizational values and 
beliefs that support Knowledge Management, there becomes a clear 
"expectation to be innovative." 

The" Collaboration Value" 

The most important value in the mission of an innovative police 
department is collaboration. Collaboration is the core element in 
capturing, sharing, applying and creating knowledge. Collaboration 
leads to key partnerships within and outside the police organization 
that includes individuals, groups and other organizational entities. Joint 
efforts, access to decision making and meaningful participation and 
exchange are evidence of collaboration. Collaboration leverages existing 
expertise, locates best practices, and eliminates redundancy. Both internal and 
external collaboration transcends the limitations of technology and 
other unilateral approaches to knowing. 


The "Openness Value" 

Although police departments have traditionally been viewed as 
closed organizational environments, there is clear evidence that this 
is changing. Organizational openness is evident in the increasing 
access given to citizens (e.g., ride-a-longs and other avenues of 
participation) and to researchers from universities and other agencies. 
An organizational environment that is open to meaningful interaction 
with others facilitates collaboration. One of the most difficult barriers 
to accessing and sharing knowledge are the internal organizational 
boundaries within organizations. Often called the "silo effect", the 
inability of organizations to defeat the physical boundaries (separate 
office buildings, precinct stations etc.) and the cultural boundaries 
(knowledge hoarding and inter-agency competitiveness) that 
prevent sharing and collaboration must be overcome. Creating an 
organizational value of openness clearly establishes the expectation 
that police departments will not only be open to others, but will in-
turn reach out and become involved with others. The connectivity 
that results from pro-active openness is the key component of 
awareness knowledge that is essential for 
organizational innovativeness. 

The Knowledge Context for Police Services 

One of the most important features of the recent era of police 
innovation has been the simple fact that all the innovations are 
based in knowledge gained from research. The data driven nature 
of policing has been established and will continue to provide a 
knowledge-centric approach to policing. It is important to recognize 
that a knowledge based approach to delivering police services is not 
static but is being refined to the next generation of the models that 
were first introduced. A "knowledge management" based police 
department must adopt a service delivery philosophy that is data 
driven. An example of such an approach is the Risk Focused Policing 
Model. Risk Focused Policing is defined as "data and results-driven, 
community oriented policing and problem solving strategy which 
focuses on those factors in a community which places its youth 
and families most at risk for criminal and other problem behaviors" 
(Bueerman, 2000, pp26). This approach relies on the extensive 
research on adolescent behavior and the application of assessment 
and intervention techniques that address the risk factors that underlie 
most youth problem behaviors. Models like this provide a "knowledge 
context" within which all organizational activities can be organized. 


GUIDELINE TWO: PRACTICE AND PROMOTE INNOVATION LEADERSHIP THAT 
IS CENTERED ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 

For Knowledge Management to become a core management activity 
in a police department, it must be adopted and implemented as a 
purposeful leadership innovation. Specific leadership behaviors are 
required to adopt and implement knowledge management. 

The Cosmopolitan Leader 

Because knowledge and its management are key ingredients to 
innovation, it is critical that innovative police departments establish 
and empower leaders who are cosmopolitan in their leadership style. 
Specifically, this requires police leaders to become firmly oriented 
and affiliated with a meaningful "outside" or external network. This 
network is most vibrant when it is not confined to the criminal justice 
system but extends to other sectors in the larger social system to 
include the private sector. The cosmopolitan police leader is on the 
"front line" of innovation through attendance to key conferences, 
special publications, regular interaction with the research community, 
and other connections often requiring extensive travel and interaction. 
In effect, the cosmopolitan leader is positioned to develop "awareness 
knowledge" as a key component in the management of knowledge. 

The Innovation Champion 

If Knowledge Management as an innovation is to succeed within 
an organization, it, along with any other police innovation, requires 
an innovation champion. Without a Knowledge Management 
champion the innovation will die. A Knowledge Management 
champion is a charismatic individual who throws his/her weight 
behind the innovation to overcome resistance to become an 
effective organizational sponsor for adoption of the idea. The 
Knowledge Management Champion may or may not be the person 
who first encounters the innovation. The selection of a Knowledge 
Management Champion should be purposeful to reflect the 
demands of both the initiation phase (decision to adopt) and the 
implementation phase. It is important that police organizations 
recognize and empower innovation champions within the organization, 
as they are often the risk takers who are most willing to initiate 
new ideas. 


The 'Authority Decision to Adopt-'Collective Design' 
of Implementation 

The organizational innovation process is most accurately viewed as 
a five stage process spanning two distinct decision phases known as 
the initiation and implementation phases. Findings from innovation 
research have revealed that often the very organizational processes 
that facilitate the adoption of an innovation during the initiation 
phase, can work against efforts during the implementation phase 
of the innovation process. Several styles of decision-making are 
available to organizations for the adoption and implementation of 
Knowledge Management. These approaches need to be tailored to 
reflect both the nature of the organization and the goal to both adopt 
and implement Knowledge Management. While police organizations 
have embraced contemporary management approaches that are based 
upon collaboration, they are still a paramilitary system that is based 
upon power, status and technical expertise. Police departments are 
not democratic organizations. Yet, it is critical to recognize that 
the police Knowledge Management innovation is an innovation cluster 
comprised of many distinct activities that are loosely bundled where 
the boundaries are not necessarily clear cut but are interconnected. 
Accordingly, the decision to adopt the Knowledge Management 
innovation should be what is known as an authority decision made 
by the Chief of Police and his/her command staff. However, the 
implementation process and subsequent decisions should be based 
in collaboration and freedom to adjust and mold the Knowledge 
Management initiative to fit the specific needs of the organization. 
Known as a collective decision-making, this process should feature 
consensus and participation among the relevant members of the 
police department. 


CHAPTER 3 - Creating an Innovation-Centric Police Department: Guidelines for Knowledge Management in Policing 

GUIDELINE THREE: RE-STRUCTURE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO FACILITATE 
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 

The adoption and implementation of the Knowledge Management 
innovation is both determined by and subsequently can affect the 
structure of the police department and its processes. While police 
departments have adopted new innovations, they have been reluctant 
to alter their basic structures to implement these innovations; if 
the Knowledge Management innovation is effectively adopted and 
implemented it will be important to remain open to altering existing 
organizational structures and/or creating new approaches. 

Research and Development as an Executive Function 

One such structural change is the clear need to create research and 
development units within police departments that report directly 
to the Chief of Police. Typically, police research units are viewed 
as grant-making machines focused upon bringing money into the 
police department. While grant making is a part of a Research and 
Development function, in a KM approach, the primary focus is the 
development of knowledge. These units can be structured to include 
crime analysis units as well as proactive research projects and serve 
both a tactical, as well as a policy function. 

External Re-Structuring 

One of the most innovative police departments in the country 
has recently assumed responsibility for the parks, recreation and 
public housing functions of the city. This consolidation under the 
directorship of the Chief of Police was done to advance a more 
integrated approach to the implementation of Community Oriented 
Policing. In an era of scarce resources where innovation is clearly 
linked to both efficiency and effectiveness, bold new approaches that 
are consistent with the "community integration" movement can be a 
part of a KM restructuring strategy. 

The Organizational Engineering Approach 

A fundamental feature of Knowledge Management is the recognition 
that employees' expertise is organizational capital. Accordingly, the 
recruitment, retention and development of police personnel should be 
a strategic effort that is designed to enhance the knowledge base of 
the organization. Such an effort requires a knowledge profile of the 
police department that reflects strengths, weaknesses and gaps in the 
organizational knowledge profile. Based upon the knowledge profile 
the police department can implement an organizational engineering 
strategy that includes targeted hiring and targeted training for 
personnel to fit the needs of the organization as a whole. 


As a social system, organizations provide the context within which 
organizational innovation occurs. This context for the Knowledge 
Management innovation can be viewed as a three-part system that 
progresses from a general to specific orientation to innovation see 
Figure 2 on next page. The organizational context for innovation is 
fundamentally established as a general philosophy that is articulated 
in the written value and belief statements. A second tier of context 
is innovation leadership that scans and champions KM within the 
police department. Finally, Knowledge Management initiated within a 
purposeful structure defines the operational implementation of KM. 

Figure 2 

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT OF INNOVATION 

“THE EXPECTATION TO INNOVATE” 
General Organizational Philosophy of Innovation 
Established In Articulated Values and Beliefs 
(Organizational Mission and Belief Statements) 

“THE INVITATION TO INNOVATE” 
Organizational Operational Philosophy of Innovation: 
Knowledge Management as an Applied Innovation 

“THE INNOVATION EVENT” 
Adoption of Specific Innovation: 
Knowledge Management Initiative That is 
Operationally Integrated 


GUIDELINES FOR CAPTURING KNOWLEDGE: KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW 

The starting point for a Knowledge Management Initiative is making 
knowledge that exists within and around the organization both known 
and available. This fundamental task is built on assessment and 
collaboration that transcends a knowledge continuum (Pendleton 2002) 
ranging from individual knowledge to organizational knowledge and 
finally community or social system based knowledge. Establishing a 
knowledge network as the focus of the "opportunistic surveillance" 
that is required for innovation is an important beginning of the 
Knowledge Management Innovation. Knowing what others know is at 
the heart of this first step in the Knowledge Management Model. 

GUIDELINE FOUR: CONDUCT A KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY AND ESTABLISH A 
KNOWLEDGE REPOSITORY 

The literature on Knowledge Management reveals the simple 
realization that organizations contain and have access to knowledge 
that is largely unavailable. In part, the lack of availability stemmed 
from the simple fact that there was little understanding of what 
knowledge actually exists within and around organizations. In effect, 
many organizations don't know what they know (O'Dell and Jackson, 
1998). To address this need it is important to conduct strategic 
knowledge inventories that encompass the both the internal and 
external police department environment. This assessment should 
document and then link "know who" knowledge with "know how" 
knowledge in four key knowledge areas: professional expertise, tactics, 
administrative process, and political-community understanding. The 
goal is to transform the implicit knowledge of the police in these areas 
to explicit knowledge that is available. 

Individual Knowledge Inventories 

Much of the early efforts in KM have been focused upon what has 
been termed the "yellow paging" or cataloging of organizational 
knowledge and experiences that reside at the individual level. The 
purpose of this effort was to identify which individuals within the 
organization had what type of knowledge and to make that known 
and available throughout the organization. A process approach such 
as this, known as "Yellow Paging," provides the first rudimentary step 
in allowing members of an organization to know whom to contact 
to access knowledge on specific topics. In policing, yellow-paged 
knowledge can refer to specific skills or expertise and/or specific 
case or problem specific knowledge. Supervisors who use software 
solutions can conduct the knowledge assessment and other technology 
based programs to establish searchable expertise data banks. 


Creating Knowledge Capacity within the Police Department 
It is well known that police departments have more data and 
knowledge stored than is ever harnessed for the delivery of police 
service. The underutilization of data is common in the policing 
profession and in many departments has rendered existing data 
banks as dustbins of data far removed from daily problem solving. 
The crime analysis unit of the police department can reverse this 
professional phenomenon by making both the unit and existing data 
banks accessible. One innovative application of police department 
data centers on knowing whom in the department has had contact 
with specific individuals and/or places of interest in the delivery of 
police services. All reports and calls for service are stored in data 
banks as "event fields" that correspond to numerous characteristics 
of the case or event. This standard data acquisition and storage 
protocol can be harnessed by officers who want to know who in their 
department knows the people related to the case. In some instances, 
investigators can actually identify in chronological sequence which 
of their colleagues has had contact with an individual of interest and 
then convene this group of officers for a discussion concerning the 
case. The searching of the department data banks and creation of 
knowledge teams about cases is but one of several applications of the 
ability to identify and link police personnel to a wide range of 
case characteristics. 

Technology for e-mail mapping known as Knowledge Mail, is now 
available to allow the use of keywords or phrases in employee 
e-mail to track expertise. When the user seeks colleagues who are 
knowledgeable about a topic, the system connects the employees 
by e-mail creating a knowledge community within the organization. 
Similar technology known as Process Book is available to establish 
a knowledge bank of organizational processes. This system can 
be applied to both physical process, such as plant systems, or 
administrative activities such as budget or personnel processes. This 
software allows any employee to contribute their experiences, work 
processes, job procedures, task instructions for specific projects, and 
allow on-line access to background information. In effect, this system 
can document all relevant organizational processes and make them 
available throughout the organization. 


Creating Knowledge Capacity from Outside the Police Department 

One of the most important changes in the police culture during 
the recent period of innovation has been an assertive willingness to 
expand the police social system to include the surrounding community 
and organizational environments. Implicit in this expanded police 
community is the potential availability of a vast array of data and 
knowledge within various sectors of this external environment. 
Increasingly, it is possible and important to gain access to these 
knowledge repositories. The COMPASS project, recently funded by 
the National Institute of Justice is an example of access data from 
outside a police department. The very first phase of this project 
focused on identifying a diverse number of community agencies 
and organizations and forming a knowledge consortium that include 
the sharing of each others data to establish a comprehensive data 
infrastructure. This data warehouse includes data collected from a 
variety of sources (criminal justice, demographic, social and health, 
schools, hospitals, physical infrastructure, business data, etc.). In 
effect, the first step was creating a data center that held vast amounts 
of data from diverse settings that, when taken together, provides a 
comprehensive understanding of all the possible factors related to 
crime and disorder. 

Appropriating Knowlede Banks 

One of the more important developments in policing over the last 20 
years has been the growing participation of the police profession in 
university-based research. During this period an extensive knowledge 
base has developed and is currently available in abstract form through 
a CD ROM subscription service that is also linked to a standard 
quarterly hard copy journal. This and other electronic knowledge 
banks are now available for search and review. Literature searches and 
reviews of this vast reservoir of knowledge about policing are essential 
elements in capturing what we know. 


GUIDELINE FIVE: UNDERSTAND, PROMOTE AND ACCOMMODATE THE 
PROTOCOLS FOR ACCESSING DATA AND KNOWLEDGE 

While knowing what we know is important, getting what we know we 
know is the ultimate objective of the first phase in the Knowledge 
Management innovation. It is critical to understand that gaining 
access to data and knowledge is often constrained by legal, cultural 
and practical barriers. Knowledge ownership, privacy protections, 
legal limitations, and the cost of retrieval and delivery must be 
accommodated in both formal and informal agreements to 
capture knowledge. 

Care the Most About Privacy and other Legal Constraints 

In an age of computer automation and technological advance, the 
ability to access knowledge has far out distanced protocols to protect 
privacy of individual. While criminal justice data is often constrained 
by law, even the best-intentioned user can easily be in possession 
of data that is in violation of the law. Legal research and the use 
of an Institutional Review Board type process to address both 
privacy protocols and address legal issues is an established process 
for guaranteeing appropriate possession and use of knowledge. A 
genuine interest in this important social issue should begin with the 
police department. 

Accommodate Cultural Characteristices 

Yet another reason that Knowledge Management efforts to capture 
police knowledge may be slowly adopted is that police culture is based 
in face-to-face situational interactions. Hansen and his colleagues 
(1999) identified two strategies for KM that are linked to the nature 
of the adopting organization. One, known as the codification strategy 
relies on documenting and storing knowledge for reuse by others. 
The other strategy is tied to person to person sharing and known 
as the personalization strategy. The long standing history of passing 
along the police culture via word of mouth and situational story telling 
when combined with the police aversion to 'paper work' suggests that 
a codification approach would not be quickly adopted in the police 
profession. Such a view is consistent with the data from this study 
where there was little enthusiasm for police problem solving "beat 
books" and other programs requiring the documentation of problem 
solving outcomes and approaches as a KM effort (Pendleton, 2002). 


Quid Pro Quo 

It is important to realize that the process of a KM inventory 
and accessing data demands resources and has associated costs. 
Both individuals and organizations may be reluctant or limited in 
their willingness to provide data and knowledge without either 
compensation, or a return on their effort. Ultimately, the true value of 
KM is in its application. It is important that individual, organizational 
and community participants understand how they will be able to use 
Knowledge Management to further their interests. Often, the giving 
of knowledge is contingent on the receiving of knowledge. 

Guidelines for Packaging Knowledge: Sharing What We Know 

Obstacles to effective knowledge management are common in closed 
organizational cultures where information 'hoarding' and 'command 
and control' management methods are practiced (Botkin, 1999). While 
police departments are increasingly opening up to new knowledge 
and the sharing of information, this represents a cultural change that 
is only emerging. For KM to be effective it is important to package 
knowledge in meaningful ways that naturally promote sharing. In this 
respect, sharing knowledge requires both Knowledge Management 
structure and process to facilitate application and access. 


GUIDELINE SIX: STRUCTURE POLICE KNOWLEDGE INTO POLICY, 
ORGANIZATIONAL AND TACTICAL PACKAGES TO 
PROMOTE MEANING AND USE 

Police knowledge can be usefully categorized into Policy Knowledge, 
Organizational Knowledge and Tactical Knowledge and police KM 
needs to address these various types. Police KM systems need to be 
designed to process information and transform it into knowledge 
packages in preparation for application to selected problems. The 
packaging of these data will logically lead to an increased interest in 
sharing of this knowledge. 

The Policy Knowledge Commons 

It is both possible and important to package data within a broad 
community based program or process such as COMPASS, which is led 
by a multi agency and community based leadership team. Data from 
across the institutional spectrum can be placed in a data warehouse 
that is accessible in a variety of formats blending inter and intra net 
access with web-based software using G.I.S. mapping capability and 
analysis. The data can be pre-packed by blending key variables in 
a map format creating and promoting knowledge of those factors 
related to crime and disorder. The packaging of this knowledge can 
easily inform policy debates, problem selection and implementation 
of multi-modal solutions. In effect, this approach "democratizes 
knowledge" allowing access and linkages with the larger community 
and policy makers. While police departments are currently placing 
data about crime on websites, only through more comprehensive KM 
projects is that data being combined with a wide range of other data 
to create knowledge about the causes and potential solutions to crime. 

The Organizational Knowledge Package 

Crime and disorder data can be usefully packaged to inform 
organizational policy issues. The most well known packaging of 
knowledge is the COMSTAT program that uses crime mapping as 
a means to understand crime trends and was specifically designed 
to hold police leaders accountable for addressing these trends. The 
packaging of organizational data, however, is in its infancy. Other 
more specific knowledge packaging is possible to focus on use of 
force, officer safety, budget and fiscal issues, training and 
education etc. 


The Tactical Knowledge Package 

While crime mapping has been adopted by most police organizations 
as a means to display and understand crime and disorder, there are 
much more that can be done to package crime and disorder data to 
inform tactical strategy. KM for detectives should start with a specific 
understanding of the crime dynamic of the specific unit. Exhaustive 
literature reviews should be conducted to create crime types/profiles 
and associated dynamics as an organizing framework within which 
all situational case knowledge is understood. All unit data should 
be arranged to create a knowledge base what is available to analysis 
using place (mapping) and crime dynamic analysis (movement and 
interaction). Database downloads along with department wide "yellow 
page" scanning can create knowledge teams that are best suited for 
addressing specific cases (see Figure 3). Patrol KM should focus 
on packaging data for use in real time mapping and crime dynamic 
analysis in preparation for each daily patrol briefing. 


GUIDELINE SEVEN: CREATE ROUTINE KNOWLEDGE SHARING PROCESS 
NOT EVENTS 

An essential feature of Knowledge Management is the sharing of 
knowledge with others as the means to desired outcomes and the 
successful application of all aspects of KM. Recent research clearly 
shows that when Knowledge Management is treated primarily as an 
"event" it acts to defeat establishing knowledge sharing as a normal 
organizational routine. Knowledge sharing is most effective when 
incorporated as ongoing routines that have specific processes designed 
to facilitate sharing. 

Figure 3. 

A POLICE UNIT BASED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROBLEM 
SOLVING MODEL 

KNOWLEDGE 
MANAGEMENT PROCESS 

1.) LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.) DATABASE 
    DOWNLOADS FROM 
    RMS AND DEPARTMENT 
    "YELLOW PAGING" 
3.STEPWISE GIS AND 
  OTHER CRIME-PLACE 
  BASED ANALYSIS 
4.) INTEGRATED 
    INTERVENTION PLAN 

DEPARTMENT UNITS   

Auto theft, Burglary, Assault, Sex Crimes, 
Domestic Violence, Narcotics, Homicide, 
etc. 

Establish an understanding of knowledge 
within existing research and professional 
literature. Informs database and analysis 
process. Each unit in the department 
builds starts their crime analysis model 
based on literature. 

Establish a crime specific data bank 
download from RMS and other 
department data. This data will be specific 
to crime. Informed by literature and 
knowledge. 

Establish a stepwise crime analysis process 
that includes all the crime dynamic 
variables and is plotted in a GIS format. 
Analysis used to plot past, current and 
projected crime activities. May purchase or 
develop analytical software. 

Craft an intervention strategy that has 
both long term and tactical elements. Plan 
blends a wide range of interventions from 
policy to tactical responses. 


The Knowledge Management Vehicle 

A fundamental feature of police Knowledge Management process is 
the creation of knowledge management process within programs or 
projects. Several examples, such as COMPASS, COMSTAT, and After 
Action Reviews, have specific process that defines the program, leading 
to specific application. In the case of COMPASS, there are processes 
for all of the components of the Knowledge Management model, 
while others, like After Action Reviews focus on only one part of the 
KM model. For sharing to occur the process should include multidiscipline 
participants and specifically require sharing and discussion of 
knowledge. Professional facilitation of the specific knowledge sharing 
process is important. 

The Knowledge Management Place 

Recent research suggests that Knowledge Management sharing is not 
just a process, but is also a place. The police department library, the 
Research, Grants & Corporate Support Unit, and the Crime Analysis 
Unit (CAU) are examples of where knowledge "happens". The 
observed linkage of a department library with the conference room 
is an interesting example of both the static feel of a repository of 
documented organizational knowledge, but also a dynamic quality 
where decisions are made by putting knowledge into action. In the 
case of the CAU, its central function, combined with its potential 
location in pathways, facilitates the "place" nature of knowledge. 
Unlike the conference room, where one must "belong" in meetings, 
CAU can be a completely open place where anyone can go during all 
hours of operation. 

GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING KNOWLEDGE: USING WHAT WE KNOW 

The ultimate purpose of Knowledge Management is not simply to 
make knowledge available, but to apply it to reach organizational 
objectives (Williams, 2001). The application of knowledge can be 
focused on both external public safety problems, as well as internal 
organizational issues. Finally, police KM can be used to both select 
potential applications but also to select subsequent interventions or 
course of action. 


GUIDELINE EIGHT: USE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PACKAGES AND 
PROCESSES TO SELECT APPLICATIONS 

The selection of applications should follow Knowledge Management 
process designed to identify and prioritize crime and disorder 
problems and organizational issues. 

Community Process 

Many knowledge management processes include a role for community 
participation and input. Leadership teams that guide a COMPASS 
selection process include community members. Other Community 
Policing forums provide specific processes that engage the community 
in identifying specific problems. Other key government process 
that inform political decision-making and policy development are 
predominate ways to select KM applications. 

Organizational Process 

While police departments rarely engage in long range planning, those 
that do engage in a process to establish long-term goals and objectives. 
KM process can both inform and follow from these 
long-range planning processes.


Crime Analysis Process 

Most police departments utilize sophisticated crime analysis methods 
such as hotspot mapping to identify and select key problems for 
KM application. 

GUIDELINE NINE: AVOID USING KNOWLEDGE 
MANAGEMENT TO POLICE THE POLICE 

Throughout the Knowledge Management literature it is clear that if 
KM is used to police employees, then adoption will be unlikely (Lim, 
et.al., 1999). There is a long tradition in the police culture, to resist 
efforts to monitor police behavior. This cultural tradition would 
suggest a less than an enthusiastic approach to KM strategies that 
propose to monitor, even map inter-officer communication (Skolnick 
and Fyfe, 1993). It is not surprising that data on accountability efforts 
like COMSTAT show limited success, suggesting that other KM 
efforts like e-mail mapping would need to be carefully crafted. Failure 
to address this key issue is likely to result in the failure of any 
KM effort. 


GUIDELINE TEN: USE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TO SELECT AND DESIGN 
INTERVENTIONS AND SOLUTIONS 

There is long standing evidence that Knowledge Management 
techniques are used in routine police activities to address crime and 
disorder problems. More recently, KM processes have been utilized to 
address police organizational issues. The use of comprehensive KM 
processes will allow for multi-modal interventions that will not only 
inform reactive strategies, but will facilitate preventive, more 
proactive approaches. 

Crime and Disorder Applications 

The more visible and growing use of Knowledge Management 
techniques are in the area of targeted crimes. The use of crime 
mapping has evolved rapidly and is now used in front line police 
operations (crime and hotspot analysis) and investigations by officers 
(Groff and LaVigne, 1998). There is specific case study data that 
demonstrates the successful use of this Knowledge Management 
technique to address a wide range of issues from auto theft, burglary, 
rape, homicide, traffic accidents, and gang activity (LaVigne and 
Wartell, 1998; LaVigne and Wartell, 2000). As efforts to create 
mapping models that predict the location of crime (Weisburd and 
McEwen, 1997) become viable, it is likely that more departments will 
integrate this knowledge into the routine briefing and deployment 
strategies. It will be critical to make these applications time sensitive 
(real time data), effective (place officers at the predicted location to 
greet the offender) and process efficient (analytical up-front work that 
reflects the crime dynamic). 

Administrative and Organizational Applications 

Less apparent, but emerging is the application of Knowledge 
Management in the administration and operation of the police 
organization. Applications of KM like COMSTAT have met with 
limited success, primarily because of a focus on "policing the 
police" and the police "event" process. Many other applications 
are possible ranging from Yellow paging for training purposes, to 
resource allocation decisions, to implementation of specific policing 
models, such as the Risk Focused Policing approach (Pendleton and 
Bueermann, 2002). 


Guidelines for Creating Knowledge: Increasing What We Know 

The creation of knowledge is clearly identified as a 'core' feature of 
Knowledge Management. The Knowledge Management challenge 
encompasses both how to learn from organizational experience and 
how to create knowledge through original research and 
development activities. 

GUIDELINE ELEVEN: ESTABLISH SPECIFIC PROGRAMS AND PROTOCOLS 
FOR LEARNING FROM ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE 

There has been a long-standing police tradition of valuing experience. 
This tradition has been focused upon individuals and the experience 
they gain throughout their careers. More recently, there has been 
a recognition that organizations can also learn from experience if 
they have a commitment to continuous improvement. Learning 
from experience can include both the experiences from within the 
organization and experiences that others outside the organization have 
also encountered. 

After Action Reviews 

After Action Reviews or Critical Incident Reviews occur after police 
events or situations. These events can be large in nature or when 
officers are involved in incidents of a serious nature. A review 
process is created to include a synopsis of the event to include 
descriptive information (time, location etc.). Key questions guide the 
process such as, "what did we do right?" "What could we do better 
next time?" How do we share this learning? One of the constraints 
on this process is the legal liability, and related personnel actions that 
often accompany reviews of difficult actions. These constraints often 
impede a complete and full understanding of an event (Pendleton, 
2002) because of legal and personnel exposure. It is important to 
develop protocols to neutralize factors that impede full and complete 
participation and disclosure. 


Lessons Learned 

A "Lessons Learned" program is designed to use after incident 
reports to create and share knowledge from police related events. The 
reporting system is web based and is accessible by anyone. Those 
wishing to report on an event, fill out a web-based form that includes 
identifying/contact information and then a response to the following 
questions: 

• 
What was the most notable success at the incident that others may 
learn from? 
• 
What were some of the most difficult challenges faced and how 
were they overcome? 
• 
What changes, additions or deletions are recommended to various 
training curriculums? 
• 
What issues were not resolved to your satisfaction and need 
further review? Based on what was learned what is your 
recommendation for resolution? 


Place Based After Action Review 

Place Based After Action Review is a version of "after action" learning 
that focuses on the location or place of critical events. This learning 
exercise requires travel to the actual locations of critical incidents 
to learn from the events in their location. This learning technique 
features not simply the event, but the geographic location and 
dynamics of the event. This case study approach is highly structured 
with numerous learning objectives that feature the interaction between 
the geography and the case dynamics (Robertson, 1987). 

Integrated after Action Review 

This technique uses a stepwise process to identify and map chronic 
and critical problems such as homicides to locate the 'target place' 
within the city. Then an after action review is conducted of all the 
recent homicides within the target place. All the key participants, 
both within the community and within the police department, are 
invited to meetings where a facilitated process is used to analyze the 
recent homicide cases in the target area. The process is guided by the 
following questions:
1.) Do you know anything about this case?
2.) What do you know about the victim?
3.) What do you know about associates of the victim?
4.) Was the victim part of a group of active offenders?
5.) What do you know about the suspect(s) /offenders?
6.) What do you know about the associates of suspects/offenders?
7.) What do you know about the relationship between the victim 


and suspect? 
8.) What do you know about the location of the event? 
9.) What do you know about the motive in this case? 
10.) Was the incident drug related? How? 
11.) What do you think was behind the event (final summary)? 


Following the after action review session, a place based analysis 
including site visits are conducted to understand fully the nature of 
the location of each of the homicides. This place analysis includes 
the location of the homicide and visits to the homes of relatives and 
other key participants within the geographic space surrounding 
the location. 

Based upon this process the crime dynamic of homicide in this area 
is developed that included a focus on motive, relational dynamics and 
the characteristic of the places in which these homicides occurred. 
Based upon this analysis, interventions are crafted to address three 
distinct types of homicides that occur in the target area. 

The Innovation Exchange 

This is a collaborative program involving multiple law enforcement 
agencies. The purpose of the program is to allow employees from 
each of the participating departments to conduct a site visit to any 
department for 5-6 hours to observe how other departments operate 
and/or provide law enforcement services in areas that have been 
problematic in the employees department. The intent is to maintain 
"a competitive edge" by discovering how "our colleagues" are doing 
things better than "we are". Employees are specifically instructed to 
abandon the mind set that "I know we do this better than they do" 
but to focus how "they do things better than we do". The program 
material provides a guide of potential areas for examination to help 
employees focus on specific areas during the observation. 

GUIDELINE TWELVE: ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC RESEARCH AND 
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

While initially the subjects of research, the police have evolved into 
research partners sharing the responsibility for selecting topics, 
managing the process, and disseminating the results. The next logical 
step in the creation of police knowledge is for the police to take the 
lead role in the creation of knowledge. The typical organizational 
model for this role is found in classic research and development units 
or departments. Police research must go beyond simply providing a 
statistical description of the department to actually employing trained 
researchers to both conduct research and liaison with Universities to 
do the same. 


CONCLUSION 

There is little evidence that the police profession is aware of 
Knowledge Management as an overall management strategy, but 
is involved in KM activities in an incremental way. Knowledge 
Management, as a purposeful organizational strategy, is more than 
an innovation in itself, but is a fundamental part of the innovation 
process that is essential to sustaining an organizational culture that is 
based in innovation. If the police profession is to sustain its position 
on the "cutting edge" of innovation, there is a need to integrate the 
various KM techniques into an interrelated system (see Figure 4). Such 
a system would link very specific crime type analysis with daily patrol 
strategies, monthly COMSTAT process and the larger COMPASS 
process that extends beyond the boundaries of the police department. 

While police departments may have adopted recent innovations 
because they need to, the relative rapidity of the adoption of 
recent innovations (Weisburd, 2001, Weisburd, et.al. 2001) and the 
emergence of intrinsically innovative police departments (Pendleton, 
2002) suggest a growing natural interest in innovation. When 
police departments want to be innovative, they will re-craft their 
organizational structure, policy and practice. In effect, innovation will 
become an intrinsic value. 


Figure 4. 

A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INTEGRATED 
INTERVENTION MODEL 

Inform Community Policy Process and Decisions: 

Place-Based Marco Analysis Using COMPASS Format 

Monthly COMSTAT Process: 

Place-Based Marco Analysis Using COMPASS Format 

Crime Unit Based Analysis: 
(Auto theft, Burglary, Sex Crimes, Domestic Violence, Assault, 
Narcotics, Homicide) KM Process: 1.) Literature Review; 2.) Data 
Base Downloads-Yellow Paging Search; 3.) Stepwise GIS and 
Crime-Place Based Analysis; 4.) Intervention Plan 

Daily Shift Briefings: 
Shift briefings conducted using 3 to 4 hour old crime and activity 
data and informed by both COMSTAT and Unit Based Analysis. 
Two to three projected screens to view mapped data. Three part 
briefing to include viewing overall crime trends and activity, one 
or two specific unit presentations, and then design of patrol 
suppression strategy-goals. 


REFERENCES 

Anselin, L., Cohen, J., Cook, D., Gorr, W., and Tita, G. (2000). In 
David Duffee, David McDowall, Brian Ostrom, Robert Crutchfield, 
Stephen Mastrofski, and Lorraine Green Mazerolle, eds. Measurement 
and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Washington D.C.: National Institute 
of Justice. 

Atkinson, P. and Hamersley, M. (1994) 'Ethnography and participant 
observation. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Norman Denzin 
and Yvonna Lincoln, pp 248-261. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Botkin, J. (1999) Smart Business: How Knowledge Communities Can 
Revolutionize Your Company. New York: The Free Press. 

Braga, A. (2001). "The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime", 
ANNALS 578: 104-125. 

Bueermann, J. (2000) 'Neighborhood Safety with Risk Focused 
Policing', The Neighborhood Works Journal. 18 (2): 25-31. 

Bukowitz, Wendi R. and Ruth Williams. (1999) The Knowledge 
Management Fieldbook. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall 

Geller, W. and Swanger, G. (1995) Managing Innovation In Policing: The 
Untapped Potential of the Middle Manager, Washington, D.C.: Police 
Executive Research Forum. 

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill 
Publishing Company. 

Gore, C. and Gore, E. (1999) 'Knowledge Management: the way 
forward' Total Quality Management July, 554-560. 

Groff, E. and LaVigne, N. (1998) 'The Use of Geographic 
Information Systems (G.I.S.) For State and Local Crime Analysis' 
Presented at the Conference of European Statisticians, Ottowa, 
Canada, October, 5-7, 1998. 

Hansen, M., Nohria, N., Tierney, T. (1999) 'What's Your Strategy For 
Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review 77 (2): 106-112. 

Hickins, M. (1999) 'Xerox Shares Its KNOWLEDGE', Management 
Review, September: 40-45. 


LaVigne, N. and Wartell, J. (1998) Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes 
In The Field, Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. 

LaVigne, N. and Wartell, J. (2000) Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes 
In The Field Volumn 2, Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research 
Forum. 

Lim, K.; Ahmed, P. and Zairi, M. (1999) 'Managing for Quality 
Through Knowledge Management',Total Quality Management. July: 
615-617. 

Malcolm, A. (1989) 'Cities try out new approach to police work', New 
York Times, March 29. 

Nonaka, Ikujiro. (1999) "The Knowledge Creating Company." 
Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, Harvard 
Business School Press. 

O'Dell, C. and Jackson, G. (1998) If Only We Knew What We Know: The 
Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice. New York: The 
Free Press. 

Pendleton, M. (1999) "Understanding Organizational Change: The 
Achilles Heel of the Contemporary Executive". Presented at an 
Executive Leadership Seminar for the Washington State Criminal 
Justice Training Commission, April 22nd, 1999 

Pendleton, M (2001). 'Charting a Course: Innovation Amidst the 
Perfect Storm'. Presented at the Annual Conference on Criminal 
Justice Research and Evaluation: Enhancing Police and Practice. 
Washington D.C., July 22-25, 2001. 

Pendleton, M. (2002) 'On The Threshold Of An Innovation: Police 
And The Management Of Knowledge'. 

Pendleton, M. and Bueermann. (2003). "Anatomy of A Police 
Innovator: A Case Study of Knowledge Management In Policing. 

Rogers, E. (1993) 'Diffusion and the Re-invention of Project 
D.A.R.E.', in Thomas E. Backer and Everett M. Rogers (eds.), 

Organizational Aspects of Health Communication Campaigns: What Works? 

Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. 139-162. 

Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: 
The Free Press. 


Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and 
Bushway, S. (1998). "Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, 
What's Promising", National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. July, 1998. 

Skolnick, J. and Fyfe, J. (1993) Above The Law: Police and the Excessive Use 
of Force. New York: The Free Press. 

Weisburd, D. (2001) 'Translating Research Into Practice: Reflections on 
the Diffusion of Crime Mapping Innovation'. Presented at the Fifth 
Annual International Crime Mapping Research Conference. National 
Institute of Justice. 

Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S., McNally, A., Greenspan, R.,(2001) 

Compstat and Organizational Change: Findings from a National Survey. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 
Justice. Police Foundation: Washington D.C. 

Williams, T. (2001). 'Knowledge Management Initiatives Gain Foothold 
in Government', Post Newsweek , 15, #23. 

Wilson, J Q., and Kelling, G. 'Making neighborhoods safe". The Atlantic 
Monthly, 134: 46-52. 


APPENDIX 

UNDERSTANDING POLICE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: A METHODOLOGICAL 
NOTE ON THE OUTCOMES OF A POLICE RESEARCH JOURNEY 

By Michael R. Pendleton Ph.D. 

When the research on police knowledge management (KM) was 
first proposed, it was conceived as a first step in the ultimate design 
of a police "Problem Solving Knowledge Management Model" 
(Chávez, 2001). It was clearly recognized that while knowledge and 
its management is at the core of contemporary policing, it is the 
least understood and most neglected aspect of the Problem Oriented 
approach to policing (Pendleton, 2002). Although this research 
effort was always envisioned as an exploratory effort into a neglected 
area, it was assumed that KM was in fact, occurring in the police 
profession, and that it was an information "prioritization" process. It 
was further assumed that the practice of KM in policing would yield 
both a roster of "best practices" and specific cases or departments that 
had implemented KM as a purposeful organizational strategy. As is 
common with a new research area, these initial assumptions were not 
entirely accurate. What emerged from this effort was a different picture 
with different outcomes. What was initially envisioned as a "first step" 
became a research journey that opened the way to discovering KM in 
policing as an emerging innovation. This is a brief research note on 
the research process and the modifications that occurred along the way. 


THE RESEARCH JOURNEY 

The strategy that guided collection and utilization of data was 
analytical induction (Glasser and Strauss, 1980), in which a researcher, 
upon entering the research data field, builds and revises a conception 
or model as empirical evidence is confronted (Strauss and Corbin, 
1990). This approach features qualitative methods that are of 
particular value when researching issues that are emerging and simply 
cannot be captured with a quantitative approach, such as the issue 
under study (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994; Pendleton, 1997). In 
this regard, the Police Knowledge Management Model (Pendleton, 
2002) was the outcome of a "data journey" guided by the literature 
on Knowledge Management and Diffusion of Innovation. A review 
of both general knowledge management and police knowledge 
management literature was treated as qualitative data. While phone 
survey data was collected, only narrative findings were utilized. 
Subsequent key informant interviews and discussions were also 
conducted as part of the data collection effort. Initial data was linked 
to subsequent data until no new data was confronted and data stability 
was realized. In effect, the data led this journey and determined 
the outcomes. The effect was a modification of the initial set of 
assumptions and the corresponding "deliverables" initially envisioned. 

POLICE AS LATE ADOPTERS 

There was little evidence, that the police profession is aware of 
Knowledge Management as an overall management strategy. This 
lack of awareness is in stark contrast to organizations in both the 
private sector and other areas in government who have been using 
Knowledge Management (KM) as a specific innovation since the 
early 1990's. In this respect, the police profession might be termed 
a 'late adopter' using Rogers (1995) categorization of types of 
adopters. In all cases, police participants expressed a complete lack 
of awareness of Knowledge Management and its meaning. There 
were no new or innovative means for acquiring information on 
crime and disorder problems that extend beyond the classic police 
information systems. In this respect, policing remains primarily a 
reactive information management system. When KM was more 
fully explained, participants could quickly identify efforts within their 
respective agencies and or areas that would "qualify" as knowledge 
management. This response is similar to the initial response when 
Community Oriented Policing and Problem Oriented Policing were 
first introduced, in that, many participants would indicate, "we have 
been doing that for years". 


It would be wrong to suggest however that there are no 'innovators 
or early adopters' of the KM strategy. While few police participants 
were Knowledge-centric in the internal management of their police 
organization, the Redlands Police Department has distinguished itself 
as a Knowledge Management innovator. Accordingly, it was decided to 
forgo a compilation of case studies on police knowledge management 
and focus instead, on the one case where Knowledge Management as a 
purposeful innovation (Pendleton and Chávez 2002) had been adopted 
(Pendleton and Bueermann, 2002). 

POLICE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AS AN INNOVATION CLUSTER 

Without question, one of the most exciting and unexpected outcomes 
of this research was the development of a Police Knowledge 
Management Model. What was thought to be a "first step" toward 
a model actually produced the model. Ironically, this model 
emerged from the disappointment of discovering little evidence that 
the police profession is aware of Knowledge Management as an 
organizational innovation. Although Knowledge Management activities 
were encountered, and participants could agree that Knowledge 
Management, in some form was present in the police world, interim 
analysis suggested a mixed and varied definition of these activities. 

To facilitate initial data organization and analysis the Diffusion of 
Innovations model was applied to the data. Rogers (1995), in his 
study of the attributes of innovations, notes that innovations are often 
not viewed in a singular way but may be perceived as an interrelated 
bundle of new ideas. The elements that comprise an innovation may 
be tightly or loosely bundled based on the degree of interrelatedness 
between elements (Koontz, 1976). The findings from this research 
suggest that together police Knowledge Management might be usefully 
viewed as an innovation cluster that is loosely bundled where the 
boundaries are not necessarily clear cut and distinct, but when taken 
together form an interconnected Knowledge Management Model. The 
Diffusion of Innovations approach notes that innovations follow a 
path that ultimately must move beyond individual based adoption but 
become established within the organizational setting and ultimately 
the social or institutional system (Rogers, 1995). The classification of 
innovations into individual, organizational and institutional categories, 
when applied to the study of KM provides a loose organizing 
framework for how tacit knowledge becomes explicit. Subsequent 
pattern analysis of the data (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) using these 
loosely defined categories, revealed four Knowledge Management 
clusters, that when linked together form a distinct and potentially 
powerful model (see Figure 1). 


What was initially conceived as a "prioritization process" of 
information, had emerged as a complex set of inter-related 
organizational activities that form a purposeful strategy to manage 
knowledge (Pendleton and Bueermann, 2002; Pendleton and Chávez, 
2002). Accordingly, it was decided to use case data to support a much 
broader set of activities that define Police Knowledge Management 
rather that simply focus on information prioritization, which is a very 
small part of the model (Pendleton, 2002). 

TOWARD POLICE INNOVATION: CONCLUDING COMMENTS 

By definition, pilot or exploratory research is an exploration of the 
unknown. Implicit in that journey is the need for adjustment and, in 
particular, alertness for opportunity. The police profession is engaged 
in knowledge management activities as dispersed organizational 
behaviors designed to accomplish incremental outcomes. The 
discovery of the Police Knowledge Management Model provides, 
for the first time, a purposeful management strategy for linking these 
activities to leverage larger and more strategic outcomes. 

The question remains, how to implement the model. One outcome 
of this project has been a set of guidelines that address each of the 
four components of the KM model (Pendleton and Chávez, 2002). 
Unfortunately, there is little experience to date, with the application 
of the KM innovation in policing. In part, these guidelines are the 
product of lessons learned from the case study of the one and only 
in-depth application of KM as a purposeful strategy. However, 
these guidelines are primarily the outcome of what has worked in the 
private sector and other government agencies as discovered during 
an exhaustive literature review and case follow-ups (Pendleton, 2002). 
While some have suggested that the police are on the cutting edge 
of innovation in criminal justice (Weisburd, 2002), it is clear that, 
as a profession, "ground can be gained" when compared to other 
institutional sectors. Like new research where adaptation is important, 
it seems clear that greater efforts to become more innovative are 
necessary in the police profession. The adoption of a purposeful 
knowledge management strategy that spans the police KM model is 
clearly an important means to that end. 


Figure 1. 

POLICE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MODEL 

I. Capturing Knowledge 
“Knowing What We Know” 

II.Processing Knowledge 
“Sharing What We Know” 

III. Applying Knowledge 
“Using What We Know” 

IV. Creating Knowledge 
“Increasing What We Know” 


REFERENCES 

Atkinson, P. and Hamersley, M. (1994) 'Ethnography and participant 
observation. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. Norman Denzin 
and Yvonna Lincoln, pp 248-261. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Chávez, D. (2001) "The Role of Knowledge Management in Police 
Problem Solving." Consultant Services Contract, City of Seattle 

Glasser, B. and A. Strauss. (1980) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: 
Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. 

Koontz, V. (1976) Determinants of Individuals' Levels of Knowledge, 
Attitudes Towards, and Decisions Regarding a Health Innovation in Maine, 
Ph.D. Thesis, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. PS (E). 

Pendleton, M. (1997) "Looking the Other Way: The Institutional 
Accommodation of Tree Theft" Qualitative Sociology . Vol. 20, (3), 
325-340 

Pendleton, M. (2002) "On The Threshold Of An Innovation: Police 
And The Management of Knowledge". 

Pendleton, M. and Bueermann, J. (2002) "Anatomy of A Police 
Innovator: A Case Study of Knowledge Management In Policing. 

Pendleton, M. and Chavez, D. (2002) "Creating An Innovation-Centric 
Police Department: Guidelines for Knowledge Management 
in Policing. 

Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: The 
Free Press. 

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded 
Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Weisburd, D. (2001) 'Translating Research Into Practice: Reflections on 
the Diffusion of Crime Mapping Innovation'. Presented at the Fifth 
Annual International Crime Mapping Research Conference, National 
Institute of Justice. 


Image of United States Department of Justice sealFor More InForMatIon: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit the COPS Online by the address listed below. 

e09050002 Updated Date: October 25, 2005 

www.cops.usdoj.gov