Investment in Technology Undermined

“At no time in our historical record have interpersonal communication skills been as important as they are today.” and "the secret to great communication: be like Aristotle". (Acknowledgements to Carmine Gallo at https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-secret-to-great-communication-skills/)

Reading this article and listening to the podcast linked to it reminded me of vocal observation over many years of the folly of over-reliance on technology in investigation at the expense of communicating with other human beings. The balance of this over reliance tipped firmly in favour of technology almost 20 years ago when police investigators positioned DNA and CCTV as the pillars of investigation whilst the investigative interviewing of witnesses, and suspects progressively became an adjunct to the process not core to it. So much so that 20 years later the often heard advice from police call-takers is to the effect of "Oh there's no CCTV so nothing we can do" and increasingly internal comment by police officers "it's a waste of time interviewing the suspect, they'll only say 'NO COMMENT'". Now this is NOT an exercise in 'police bashing' or whingeing by a 'hoary old detective' but on hearing that the College of Policing was to advocate withdrawal of specialist interview training after 20 years of skills investment, the perils of corporate amnesia are worthy of reminder.

Coincidentally it is also 20 years since the 'invention' of a forensic science called Low Copy DNA (LC DNA), without doubt a technological revolution in investigation that not only benefitted investigation going forward but highlighted some disgraceful and well-documented miscarriages of justice usually arising, ironically, from the very interview practices in danger of enjoying a resurgence.

So how and why is technology undermined, does it fail to fulfil its potential, and corporate amnesia so dangerous? Two key reasons - poor communication (interview) skills and, at least in the world of law enforcement, ignorance of the tactical use of evidence.

Hot on the heels of LC DNA the UK Home Office made available something in the order of ￡75,000,000 to enable police forces to instigate a campaign using the science to detect what was termed volume and acquisitive crime, burglaries primarily, as they had become a 'hot' political topic. It coincided with new legislation governing police reform that rewarded and incentivised senior officers if they achieved central government targets, a toxic mix incidentally that was to have dire life altering consequences for many in subsequent years - but not for this post!

Doubtless some of that investment reaped reward but the lack of investment in complementary interpersonal communication (interview) skills wasted a considerable amount as time and time again it was thrown away by poor communication, viz: "If I told you we'd got your DNA on a fag end in the house (or on the balaclava in the getaway car from the robbery) I suppose you're going to tell me someone must've walked it in (or you 'lost' a bally' night fishing) are you?"

Answer inevitably: ".....Err.....Yes".

Safe to say that technology has not been leveraged as much as it might have been?

Now in the corporate world I have been asked several times by senior directors if there's anything 'we' can do to improve the communication skills of staff who are increasingly securing positions directly from Higher Education with excellent academic skill but parlous inter-personal skills. The answer of course is a resounding 'YES', but let's draw the parallel with the application of technology in the commercial world.

Institutions invest ￡millions in technology to manage risk; IT monitoring, pen-testing, AI, building monitoring, cctv etc but what do they do with the output of that technology? So, just as in the world of policing, much more benefit could be leveraged with just a fraction of the cost of the technology invested in inter-personal communication skills.

Technology accounts for the exposure of less than 6% of institutional fraud and gross misconduct, people talking to other people accounts for over 60% (KPMG 2018), but what training do those using the output have to apply it effectively. Some will observe that it's okay because we've exposed shrinkage, misconduct, or fraud so just 'get rid' of the person caught on cctv or sending dodgy emails, move that problem on. Others might be more inquisitive and wonder just how extensive is the problem, who else is involved, or what else have they done. That bit needs skilled communication, tactical awareness, and the ability to deal with difficult conversations and people.

So, in conclusion, whether termed a 'hard' or 'soft' skill, 'technical' or non-technical' is relatively unimportant, indeed semantics to some extent, but what is vital is that it's recognised as a skill if the return on investment is to be maximised, decisions founded on reliable and accurate detail and shareholders protected.