The Hidden Cost of Disconnected Body-Worn Camera Systems

When organisations evaluate body-worn cameras, the obvious costs are easy to identify.

There is the camera hardware, associated accessories, software and storage.

But there is another consideration that can be much harder to quantify: the operational cost of using technology that does not fit together effectively.

A body-worn camera does not operate in isolation. Recordings need to move from the device into a secure environment, be associated with the correct user or incident, stored appropriately, located when required and, in some circumstances, securely shared.

If those individual stages rely on disconnected processes, additional administration can quickly become part of the everyday workload.

For organisations considering body-worn video, it is therefore worth looking beyond the individual camera and considering how efficiently the complete system works.

Every additional process requires time

Consider what needs to happen after a frontline employee finishes a shift with recorded footage on their camera.

The device needs to be returned or connected. The footage needs to be uploaded. Recordings may need to be identified and categorised. Relevant footage must be stored and, when required, retrieved by an authorised user.

None of those tasks are particularly unusual.

The problem arises when each one requires a separate manual process.

At small scale, an extra few minutes of administration may appear insignificant. Across a larger workforce using cameras every day, however, repeated manual tasks can become a considerable operational requirement.

That is why workflow should be part of the conversation when organisations evaluate body-worn video.

Connecting the camera to the user

One of the first challenges in a shared camera deployment is establishing who was using a particular device.

Pinnacle Response's Digital Evidence Management System (DEMS) supports device management using the user ID and camera serial number, enabling cameras to be assigned to users.

When footage subsequently enters the system, automatic metadata can include information such as the user, camera serial number and date and time.

This creates a structured relationship between the person, the device and the resulting recording.

For organisations operating a pool of shared cameras, that can remove the need to reconstruct this information manually later.

Reducing manual handling when footage is uploaded

How footage moves from the camera into the organisation's system is another important consideration.

Different working environments require different options.

Pinnacle Response's current body-worn camera range supports direct Wi-Fi uploading and multi-unit USB uploading. The PR8 also provides 4G upload capability.

The significance of these options is not simply connectivity for connectivity's sake.

They allow organisations to consider how footage can move into the evidence-management environment in a way that fits their operational model.

A centralised security operation may work differently from a workforce spread across multiple locations. A transport organisation may have different requirements from a facilities management provider with personnel working at client sites.

The workflow should reflect how the organisation actually operates.

Making information easier to find

The administrative cost of a poorly structured system can also appear much later.

Recording footage is relatively straightforward.

Finding one particular recording among a large volume of footage can be considerably more difficult if the information surrounding it has not been organised effectively.

DEMS automatically captures video metadata and also enables footage to be manually tagged using configurable categories, case references or incident IDs.

The platform then provides search functionality to help authorised users locate relevant recordings.

The benefit is not simply having somewhere to store video.

It is creating a structured body of information that can be searched when somebody actually needs it.

Avoiding unnecessary duplication

Disconnected systems can also create duplication.

Information may be recorded in one system, transferred into another and then manually associated with a separate incident or reference.

Where processes can be brought together, organisations have an opportunity to reduce repeated administrative steps.

This is one reason why integration between the camera and the evidence-management environment matters.

Pinnacle Response designs its body-worn cameras and DEMS as parts of the same wider solution.

The objective is not simply to capture footage, but to provide a route for managing it once it has been created.

Access should not mean losing control

Efficiency cannot come at the expense of security.

Making footage easier for authorised users to locate and manage does not mean making it universally accessible.

DEMS supports password-controlled access levels so organisations can manage who has access to recordings.

It also maintains an audit trail covering activity including viewing, editing and sharing.

This provides accountability around the footage while still enabling authorised personnel to perform the tasks required as part of their role.

Consider the workflow, not just the hardware

A camera specification can tell you a great deal about a device.

It can tell you about recording capability, battery life, dimensions, durability and connectivity.

What it cannot tell you on its own is how much work will be involved in operating the system every day.

For organisations evaluating body-worn video, some useful questions therefore sit outside the traditional specification sheet:

• How will cameras be assigned to users?
• How will recordings be uploaded?
• How much manual information needs to be entered?
• How will someone locate footage six months later?
• Who will be permitted to access it?
• How will activity surrounding that footage be recorded?
• And how many separate processes or systems will employees need to use?

These questions become increasingly important as the number of cameras, users and locations grows.

The cost of technology includes the time required to operate it

The purchase price of body-worn video is only one element of its operational impact.

Technology that introduces unnecessary administration can consume employee time long after the initial procurement decision has been made.

Conversely, a connected approach can help organisations build camera allocation, uploading, metadata, storage, searching and evidence management into a more coherent workflow.

That does not mean every organisation requires exactly the same process.

It means workflow should be considered alongside hardware when deciding what a professional body-worn video system needs to deliver.

At Pinnacle Response, our body-worn cameras and Digital Evidence Management System are designed as an integrated solution for professional organisations.

To discuss how a Pinnacle Response system could fit your organisation's operational requirements, contact our team.

Tel: +44(0)2895320222
Email: sales@pinnacleresponse.com