To get an overall understanding of who these “citizens” are, we made broad categories which would encompass most of the archetypes. Further, we made personas of citizens to represent each archetype. We have tried to cover as wide a demographic as possible, but have limited ourselves to urban spaces.
Topic selected. Research done. Key insights gathered. And we leaped. Created an ideal scenario of how the police system should work. We had our system in place but felt the “flow” missing. We needed validation and had to make sure that what we were doing is headed somewhere. After consulting our guide Rupesh Vyas, we wrote to our Microsoft liaisons Justin George and Nithin Ismail to get their feedback on our progress, contacted Bhaskar Bhatt (Product Design) to get some insights on system design and the way forward, and then caught with Prof MP Ranjan at the BMW for some conversation on design thinking in this sticky domain.We’re trying to resolve our conflicts of what issues to tackle, whether to look at the system as a whole or narrow down to a specific problem and concentrate on conceptualizing to solve it. Some of the issues get crossed out because of the brief, which requires us to make use of ambient data so we would have to be dealing with the behaviour and perception of a community rather than the interaction between a single citizen and policeman.
From the feedback we got, it seems like we’ve got quite a bit to do. Bhaskar’s feedback would help us create solution bank and then choose the most critical ones to solve. Ranjan again, talked about mapping out as many design opportunities as possible after a thorough understanding of the system, even if we can’t design for all of them–we would leave behind mapped opportunities for others to take up.
Next task is to get the user personas up on the blog. Then, identify individual problems and conceptualize in order to tackle those specific issues.
When we visited the Gaikwad Haveli Police Station, one of the main insights (upon observation) was the mammoth amount of paperwork to be done by Police officials in the event of a filing of a complaint.
To put it in a procedural format, here is how it works:
1. The complaint is registered in the Station Register, once the Citizen talks to a Police Constable in the Police Station
2a. After verifying and deciding the category of the complaint as Cognizable and Non Cognizable, the Non Cognizable complaint leads to a final Application / Report which is given to the Citizen.
2b. In the case of a Cognizable complaint, the report is registered as an F.I.R in the F.I.R register, and however the case progresses, the reports are filled in the Case Diary. The Case Diary has the entire details of case, including the Investigation Officer and the other officials handling the case. Once the criminals are caught, the entire details of him/them is written out in the Apprehended Form.
3. In both cases (ie the F.I.R/ Non F.I.R) there is a record maintained in the Crime Record Book.
As we understood the process, we figured that the filling in needs to be done manually at every stage and there is a lot of repetition involved.
This is one of the major workloads of the Policemen.
After conducting the survey on SurveyMonkey (with varied demography), the next step was to put it out entirely, read what the various experiences were and to analyse all the collected information.
With the help of SurveyMonkey’s inbuilt tools we were able to charter out a lot of objective answers and see the statistics within them. We categorised our information based on the questions we asked, objective and subjective (experience explanation)
The infographic below explains the Citizen Account Analysis, which gave us a lot of insight into what people actually think, how they react and what their awareness levels are.
We started mapping the process of filing a complaint so as to get a sound understanding of all that takes place, and the interaction between a citizen and a policeman. This would later help us in identifying the key problem areas and map opportunities for design interventions. Apart from the process itself, the diagram shows the background and notions of the citizen as well as the pressures, notions, background and other factors influencing a policeman in that time and space. The process diagram is accompanied by (red) flags that describe what the policeman in the real scenario does (eg. increases/decreases weightage of complaint depending on influence, or tries not to file a FIR to show decreased crime rate in his area). Once the process diagram was in place, we started mapping opportunities for design interventions and flagged the different parts of the process where we felt the need for a change to be made. A brief discussion with our guide Mr. Rupesh Vyas also threw light on some of the issues that could be looked at (digitization of the “Dial 100” service with location based information so time is not lost in trying to explain where the incident has occurred, thereby decreasing response time).
We are in the process of visualizing the results from the survey in order to understand the general citizen perspective as well. It will hopefully give us more insight so we can identify more problem areas and validate the ones that we have identified so far.
Few questions that this exercise has raised is whether we should increase or decrease interaction between the police and citizens. Is the goal to create hassle free processes or to curb corruption or to facilitate a better relationship or can all of these goals achieved together? Shouldn’t we also consider the workload of the policeman and look at ways in which that can be reduced as well? Would empowering the citizens with the information they require at the right time help in the given situation?
We hope to be able to find answers to these questions, and further go laterally and map out as many opportunities as possible before we start to shoot some of the ideas down after validation, and then focus on conceptualizing the ones with the most merit.