Law enforcement acts as both an agent of control and an agent of support(Woolpert, 1980). Historically, the control function has been given more importance and greater media coverage, though, in fact, the support function forms the bulk of police work (Woolpert, 1980; Whitehouse, 1973). Crime statistics do not provide an accurate picture of the order maintenance functions performed by the police (Furstenberg and Wellford, 1973).

It is important to recognize the dual nature of the police function in re-designing efforts to improve quality. Such a distinction allows setting of appropriate service standards and allocation of sufficient resources to meet the targets, thus preventing tension between the support and control functions. Substantiating this point, Butler (1992) gives an example of a community seeking to increase foot-patrols to solve community problems. Given the budgetary restrictions, putting more foot-patrols will require diversion of resources from response services, which in-turn will decrease the quality of response service. If this change is not clearly communicated to the community there may be a negative reaction to the police service.

Internal versus external measures:

Since the police operate under conflicting demands placed by different interest groups, a multiple-indicators approach to evaluate services is warranted. Performance assessment can be established on internal and/or external targets. Internal measures of service quality are typically indicators of progress towards a mission derived and monitored by administrators. These performance assessments are associated with certain service functions and often implemented as a series of specific performance measures (Kelley and Swindell, 2002). In contrast, external measures of service effectiveness come from citizens, usually through satisfaction surveys. These internal and external types of performance indicators are often characterized as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ measures respectively (Brudney and England, 1982).

The internal measures are typically quantitative in nature, thus bringing objectivity in the interpretation. For example, the police have relied on crime statistics as an indication of how well they are carrying out their duties. Rogerson (1995, p. 27) states some of the more obvious examples of quantitative measures of police performance currently in use:

• Total crimes per 1,000 population
• Number of burglary detections per 1,000 officers
• Burglaries of dwellings per 1,000 dwellings
• Number of detections for violent crime per 100 officers
• Violent crimes per 1,000 population
• Percentage of 911 calls answered within target times
• Percentage of calls requiring immediate police response attended within target times
• Numbers of persons arrested/reported for notifiable offences prosecuted
• Net expenditure per head of population on police

Some scholars (Grasso and Epstein, 1987; Rogerson, 1995) have argued that emphasis on such quantitative performance measures can result in goal distortion, manipulation of results, and short run micro-level orientation. To illustrate such distortion in police services, Rogerson (1995, p. 26) gives an example that “to measure police activity against criminals, the number of intelligence reports may be monitored. The number of such reports would almost certainly increase, as low-grade information, of little operational use, is duly submitted on the requisite forms. Individual patrolling officers will also be gently nudged by the persuasive, hidden hand of numerical performance targets towards achieving the figures.” To meet the quantitative targets, often a driving violation ticket is written by officers for an act that would defy all logic.

Integrating external and internal measures

There is a widespread belief that to improve law enforcement service quality, the objective/hard measures that reflect internal performance should be integrated with subjective/soft measures that incorporate the voice of the customers. Similar sentiments were presented more than three decades ago by Ostrom (1973) who recommended developing multiple indicators of service quality, including citizen perceptions and establishing relationships among indicators. These integrated performance measures will help drive efficient and effective police force at the operational level, introducing the notion of management competence (Rogerson, 1995).

Placing the customer at the center of the organization’s activities, Drummond et al. (2000) applied the customer (market) orientation theory to examine police service strategies in the New York Police Department (NYPD). NYPD, which face one of the worst crime rates in America and a police force exhibiting poor morale and corruption, achieved a total transformation. Drummond et al. (2000) found a “three stage turnaround process to enhance service quality and highlight the importance of market orientation in counteracting the concept of unwilling/reluctant customers.” According to their findings the organization’s culture placed importance on being customer focused and pursued formal programs for enhancement. They developed a deeper understanding of who their customers were, which established the overall role those departments/functional groups would play in external customer service. In addition, internal customer/supplier interfaces were improved to enhance internal service delivery. The senior management in NYPD viewed law enforcement as a service profession and implemented a service delivery program including courtesy, professionalism, and respect (CPR). Drummond et al. (2000) found that the CPR program was compliance tested via officers posing as members of the public, with duty officers being rewarded or rebuked. The researchers found that NYPD had a streamlined information flow system and a “high degree of awareness among staff as to how briefings would take place and how they could provide feedback to senior management” (Drummond et al., 2000). In return, the senior managers emphasized the importance of communication with their staff to get their support for the program. Effective communication was evident in vertical (top-down and bottom-up) and horizontal (across functional areas) communication. NYPD enhanced vertical communication through round table sessions, bringing the Commissioner into regular contact with patrol level officers. External communication was also considered an extremely important function, informing and securing feedback from customer groups in a two-way process. The NYPD used survey/polls in the New York media relating to law enforcement issues to gather citizen feedback as a substitute to the high cost strategy of conducting citizen surveys themselves. Communication was considered a learning process for the NYPD and for educating people about its role. The NYPD regularly invited community representatives into command centers to explain major initiatives prior to their implementation. Drummond et al. (2000) found that employees were actively involved in giving suggestions and in the designing of the service process and improvements targeted to increasing customer focus. Collective team spirit was enhanced by active support of senior management.

Quality function deployment – a tool to integrate internal and external measures

Despite the importance of an integrated approach in the success achieved by the NYPD, Kelly and Swindell (2002) found that there is a widespread lack of integration between internal measures and citizen satisfaction (external) measures in the existing evaluative system used by most police organizations. One obvious reason explaining this lack of relationship may be that internal measures are calculated typically at the national level, whereas external measures from citizen surveys are adopted at local neighborhood levels. Another important reason for this lack of correlation may be due to a comparability issue between administrative evaluation of service quality and citizen evaluation of service quality. Park (1984) explains this lack of congruence between the types of things that departments measure and citizens notice. Typically, internal measures are based on inputs and efficiencies; external performance measures are outcome based. For example, public opinion surveys reveal the fear that people have about crime in their cities and neighborhoods. Fear of crime is real, but it is hard to measure. Therefore, it is important to understand the indicators of peoples’ safety to develop realistic internal targets to fight crime. In other words, delivering service quality requires the determination of what the customer wants and then responding accordingly. There is wide agreement amongst both academicians and practitioners that what gets recognized gets measured, and what gets measured gets done.

In the rest of the paper, we will discuss a technique called quality function deployment (QFD) (Akao, 1990; Hauser and Clausing, 1988) that provides an interface between external and internal measures. QFD was developed during the late 1960s in Japan by Yoji Akao and first applied at Mitsubishi Kobe Shipyards in 1972 to increase customer satisfaction (Akao, 1990). It is a structured methodology that has been adopted predominantly in manufacturing to improve customer satisfaction. In a service environment, QFD uses a set of three matrices to interlink external and internal measures, thus providing an interface between customer needs and day-to-day management techniques adopted at the frontline worker level (Ermer and Kniper, 1998). This technique allows the incorporation of the voice of the customer into the service process design, thus improving service quality. First, a discussion is presented on the different sub-parts of a house of quality and how to construct it. Subsequently, a discussion is presented on the nature of the interface between the three matrices comprising service quality.

Sub-parts of a house of quality: Each matrix can be viewed as a set of six stages, providing a systematic hierarchical framework (Han et al., 2001). The same six stages need to be followed in constructing the second and the third matrix.

The first stage is called the voice of the customer comprising of three steps. The first step is to develop critical customer requirements, which form the primary service bundle attributes desired by the target customers and are the driving force in the QFD. The organization should objectively determine the group or groups that best describe its current and/or desired customer base. Using a variety of methods, the wants of these customer groups is determined. Some of the methods used for collecting this information (WHATs) are interviews, questionnaires, town hall meetings, articles written in the local press, and reports presented in the local media. It is extremely critical for law enforcement departments to use the terms, phrases, and language that the customers understand if interviews and questionnaires are used. Law enforcement agencies also have to be careful that bias does not occur in customer response due to fear of retaliation from the police for negative feedback. Often, a third party can be used to collect the information on behalf of the law enforcement agency to prevent any bias.

Typically, there will be too many customer requirements. These will be phrases used by customers to describe the service and service characteristics. To make them manageable, customer requirements should be systematically grouped or bundled to represent an overall customer concern. The QFD team will group this information using varying techniques ranging from intuition to sophisticated statistical techniques (Motwani et al., 1996). The outcome is customer requirements which are thenpresented as the rows of the matrix.

Not all customer requirements are equally important. Therefore, after consolidating the WHATs, as a third step the QFD team should determine the priority that is to be allocated to each of these customer needs. The objective here is to develop a better understanding of which customer requirements should receive greater attention in later service design efforts and the target levels that need to be set for them in the second stage. In setting these priorities, the QFD team will work with customers to determine the priorities and factor in the customer-complaint data. More advanced statistical techniques can also be used that allow customers to state their preferences. These weightings are displayed next to the customer attribute in a column, shown as the “relative importance” column. These weightings can be represented in terms of percentages, with the entire list totaling to 100%. Sometimes, the weightings can be allocated on the basis of simple classifications of customer attributes. The customer attribute classified as very important can be weighted as 9; the customer attribute classified as medium importance can be weighted as 5; and the customer attribute classified as less important can be weighted as 1. There is no hard and fast rule on these weights; the QFD team members have to come to a consensus on the weights they would like to attach to each category.

In the second stage, the voice of the organization (HOW) is introduced. The QFD team describes the service measures/characteristics that identify how the service will be delivered to the customer when he/she interacts with the service providers or how the organization will meet the requirements of the customers. QFD teams should walk through the various steps at which the customer can potentially interact with the service providers and identify relevant measures to capture each interaction. These items which form the external service characteristics should be precise. Far more number of service measures/ characteristics (HOWs) will be identified during the brainstorming session, but not all of them will be selected for implementation.

In the third stage, the relationship matrix is created. The QFD team fills the main body of the matrix, indicating how much each service measure/characteristic (HOW) correlates to each customer requirement (WHAT). The QFD team seeks consensus on these evaluations based on expert opinion, customer responses, and tabulated data from statistical studies under controlled experiments (Hauser and Clausing, 1988). These relationships are typically described on a scale anchored as strong (= 9 points), medium (= 5 points), weak (=1 point), and no relationship (= 0 point). The direction of the relationships is represented by a positive or a negative sign.

Next, the absolute importance is calculated for each service measure, which provides a method for determining which service measures have the largest effect on meeting customer requirements. The above numerical values calculated in the third stage are multiplied with a relative importance rating (calculated in step 3 of stage 1 and given in the relative importance column) to calculate an absolute importance value for each service measure. The mathematical representation of calculating the absolute importance rating of each service measure is determined as follows (Han et al., 2001):

D_j = ∑_iA_i R_ij for i = 1, ……n; and j = 1,…….m

D_j = importance weight of the j^th service measure

A_i = importance weight of the i^th customer requirement

R_ij = relationship value between the i^th customer requirement and the j^th service measure

n = number of customer requirements

m = number of service measures

In the fourth stage, a correlation matrix between the service measures/ characteristics is created, which is presented in the roof of the house. Here, we are identifying the relationship between the service measures. These relationships are typically described on a scale anchored as strong (= 9 points), medium (= 5 points), weak (=1 point), and no relationship (= 0 point). The direction of the relationships is represented by a positive or a negative sign. Positive correlation is where one service measure supports another service measure. Alternatively, a negative correlation exists when one service measure adversely impacts another service measure. Information provided in the fifth stage helps the organization to decide which service measures should be developed together (obviously the ones with high positive correlation). The information presented in the correlation matrix also informs the organization of which service measures will be negatively impacted by other service measures, and hence to keep a close watch on them.

The fifth stage is called competitive analysis, which is performed in two steps. The main objective here is to gauge whether delivering the perceived needs will yield a competitive advantage. In this exercise, a simple question is asked, namely, how good are we as compared to other law enforcement agencies located in a similar demographical location in fulfilling the given customer requirements? Here, it is important to choose another agency for comparison that faces similar demands so that we are comparing apples with apples. There may not be any direct competition in the area of law enforcement; but such an analysis with agencies at other geographical locations can provide an advantage of greater funds and grant money. Comparison can also identify opportunities for improvement, which has positive implications for customer satisfaction. The comparison allows the organization to set realistic target levels for each of the customer requirements that the organization hopes to achieve. Due to limited resources, tradeoffs have to be made between different customer requirements based on the comparison with the competition. The competitive analysis is represented in the far right of the matrix.

In the sixth stage, a comparative analysis of the service measures/characteristics is performed, which becomes the basis for setting the targets for service measures. The first step is for the QFD team to assess and compare the organization’s service measures/characteristics to those of the competition. In this exercise, a simple question is asked, namely, how good are we at fulfilling a particular service measure when compared to another law enforcement agency located in a similar demographical location? Again, it is important to choose an agency that faces similar demand as our office. These comparisons with competition are represented in the sub-basement of the house. These comparisons, along with the industry norms, then become the basis for specifying target values that the organization aims to achieve in order to improve. At this time, the organization can also explore the projected cost of enhancing the service measures to the target specification. It is prudent to brainstorm other organizational constraints such as technical difficulty and the amount of time that may be required to implement the target specifications of each service measure. At this time, if the QFD team is not satisfied with any of the outcomes, they can go back and make changes to any of the previous stages. These service measure targets are typically presented in the basement of the house.

Interface between matrices: Traditionally, QFD was presented in a manufacturing environment as a structured methodology that provided chain-like interface between four matrices. This set of matrices translated customer requirements into product design and manufacturing process requirements, thus providing for increased customer satisfaction. However, in a service environment, such as law enforcement, QFD uses three matrices. It provides a chain-like interface between these different matrices, representing customer needs, service measures, design and process characteristics, and day-to-day quality management techniques adopted at the frontline worker level. This integration between matrices results in day-to-day consistency in meeting or exceeding customer requirements (Ermer and Kniper, 1998).

The first matrix presents the relationship between customer requirements (rows) versus service measures/characteristics (columns) (Ermer and Kniper, 1998). The five broad dimensions typically representing customer requirements (WHAT) are reliability, responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, and empathy (Parsuraman et al., 1985, 1988). On the other hand, the service measures/characteristics (HOW) can be broadly divided into (1) impact/outcome measures, which are associated with the outcome of the service; and (2) the service process, which are associated with the experience that a customer has when he/she goes through the service delivery process. For example, when a customer goes to a restaurant, the service is delivered on two fronts. First, is outcome-based, which is the quality/taste of the food. Second, is process-based, which is the entire experience provided to the customer in the restaurant beginning from the time he/she walked in, to the time they walked out. In the law enforcement, outcome-based measures would be typically the statistics on various types of crimes in a county such as cases of theft, cases of vandalism and crimes against properties, cases of sexual assault, etc. When the outcome-based statistics are declining, it provides greater satisfaction to the customer. On the other hand, the process-based measures would comprise of items such as “how fast did the police respond to a 911 call?” or “how did the officers interact once they were at the crime scene?” These measures will meet customer requirements as the customer goes through the process with the law enforcement officers. Therefore, the first matrix identifies a set of service measures/characteristics (HOWs) delivered by the organization to satisfy the customers’ desire (WHATs).

The second matrix takes the service measures/characteristics (the HOWs) from the first matrix and treats them as “WHATs” (that is, the columns from the first matrix become rows in the second matrix). Next, a set of service design elements (HOWs) are identified that can deliver these service measures/ characteristics (WHATs). These service design elements relate to structural issues such as service capacity, facility design, technology, and location; and managerial issues such as service culture including ethics and leadership, workforce selection and training, workforce motivation and empowerment, quality management, and information management. Size and capacity are important, as too little capacity may lead to poor service. Facility design decides on the layout of the facility, how the back office and front office are designed to allow for effective communication and minimizing unnecessary movement of the officers. Process technology is how the work is done and the choice of technology that is used to provide service. Location is an important factor for high contact service like law enforcement. The facility should be located taking into account the demographics, distance from the school district, distance from the problem neighborhoods, away from heavy traffic areas to allow for ease of driving to the crime location, and so on. Service culture is embedded in the leadership, and ethics will guide the service encounters. Workforce selection and training will provide for the necessary skills required to provide service. Workforce empowerment and motivation is important to the officers’ attitude and willingness. Decisions about how quality will be defined, measured, and monitored within the organization will critically impact service standards, because of intangibility of the services and their simultaneous production and consumption. Information management including data collection, speed of data retrieval etc. can make a significant impact to the support that officers need from their office when they are in the field.

The third matrix takes the service design elements (the HOWs) from the second matrix and treats them as “WHATs” (that is, the columns from the second matrix become rows in the third matrix). Next, a set of day-to-day management techniques are identified (HOWs) that can deliver these service design elements. In simple words, matrix-3 is providing an answer to the question, “how should the day-to-day service be managed to ensure that the service design elements are consistently met?” Some of the general daily management techniques (HOWs) in law enforcement organizations would be prevention talks to selected target groups, maintaining regular contacts with business owners, conducting day and night patrols, participating in safety forums/boards, providing victim support, revisiting victims, etc.

What do we carry over from matrix one to matrix two?

(1) The most important service measures (HOWs) based on their relative rank are carried into matrix two, where they become WHATs. Those service measures that are ranked lower may either be dropped from further consideration or may be developed at a later time once the important service measures are under control (Ermer and Kniper, 1998). However, common sense should not be given up in choosing which service measures to carry over and which to give up.

(2) The absolute importance of each service measure in matrix one is transferred to matrix two, where it becomes the relative importance column. Here the choice is to either transfer the normalized scores or transfer them in their absolute form. There is no one best method. However, we prefer the use of normalized scores, because transferring the absolute scores can soon become a gigantic number as it translates through the matrices. Subsequently, the absolute importance in matrix two for each service design characteristic is calculated, which shows how important each of these are in ensuring consistent service measures. The absolute importance for each service design characteristic appears at the bottom of matrix two. The normalized scores for absolute importance scores appear in the row directly below the absolute importance row, which can be also treated as relative rank.

What do we carry over from matrix two to matrix three?

(1) The service design characteristics (HOWs) are carried over from matrix two to matrix three, where they become WHATs.

(2) The normalized score for absolute importance of each service design characteristic in matrix two is transferred to matrix three and becomes the relative importance column. Subsequently, the absolute importance in matrix three for each management technique is calculated, which shows how important each of these techniques is in ensuring consistent service quality. The absolute importance for each technique appears at the bottom of matrix three. The normalized scores for absolute importance scores appear in the row directly below the absolute importance row, which can be also treated as relative rank.

It should be noted here that the voice of the customer is introduced as customer requirements into the first matrix and then carried through the second and the third matrix by developing linkages between inputs and outputs of different phases of development.

Conclusion:

When the house of quality is complete, the QFD team can then examine and use it to achieve service realization that will allow the law enforcement agency to enjoy improved resource utilization and provide greater customer and employee satisfaction. QFD enables an organization to focus proactively on customer requirements early on in the design stage. It is a process that helps organizations to make the tradeoffs between what the customer desires and what the organization can afford to provide. Moreover, it helps in evaluating between customer requirements, which often may conflict with each other. Careful planning through the use of QFD formally recognizes the existence of such a tradeoff, allowing the planners to make informed choices and preventing service failures. The process of going through the tradeoffs provides a comprehensive knowledge of the inter-relatedness of the different functions within an organization and the corresponding impact on service performance (Stuart and Tax, 1996). In addition, the utilization of QFD will build credibility of the law enforcement agency amongst citizens as they see their needs are being fulfilled. Moreover, QFD team members obtain a collective understanding of the customer needs. Since the QFD members come from a variety of positions in the agency (Motwani et al., 1996), it builds team awareness throughout the organization. The team building promoted by QFD also allows for easier implementation of changes as everyone takes an ownership to the required changes. This whole exercise creates documentation, which is very useful for improving quality.

*Dr. Rajeev Sawhney is a professor at Western Illinois University. Correspondence concerning this article may be directed to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . The author would like to thank Professors Sabita Sawhney, Jennifer Allen, and Terry Mors for their valuable comments.

Akao, Y. (1990). QFD: Integrating Customer Requirement into Product Design. Cambridge, MA, Productivity Press.

Brudney, J.L. & R.E. England (1982). Urban Policy Making and Subjective Service Evaluations: Are they Compatible? Public Administration Review, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 127-135.

Butler, A.J.P. (1992). Developing Quality Assurance in Police Services. Public Money & Management, January-March, pp. 23-27.

Drummond, G., J. Ensor, A. Laing, and N. Richardson (2000). Market Orientation Applied to Police Service Strategies. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 571-587.

Ermer, D.S. & M.K. Kniper (1998). Delighting the Customer: Quality Function Deployment for Quality Service Design. Total Quality Management, vol. 9, nos. 4&5, pp. S86-S91.

Furstenberg, F.F. Jr. & C.F. Wellford (1973). Calling the Police: The Evaluation of Police Service. Law and Society Review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 393-406.

Grasso, A.J. and I. Epstein (1987). Management by Measurement: Organizational Dilemmas and Opportunities. Administration in Social Work, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 89-100.

Griffin, A. and J.R. Hauser (1993). The Voice of the Customer. Marketing Science, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-27.

Han, S.B., S.K. Chen, M. Ebrahimpour, & M.S. Sodhi (2001). A Conceptual QFD Planning Model. The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 796-812.

Hauser, J.R. & D. Clausing (1988). The House of Quality. Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 63-73.

Kelley, J. & D. Swindell (2002). A Multiple Indicator Approach to Municipal Service Evaluation: Correlating Performance Measurement and Citizen Satisfaction Across Jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, September-October, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 610-620.

Moore, M.H. & D.W. Stephens (1991). Beyond Command and Control: The Strategic Management of Police Departments. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, D.C.

Motwani, J., A. Kumar, & Z, Mohamed (1996). Implementing QFD for Improving Quality in Education: An Example. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 14, 2, pp. 149-159.

Ostrom, E. (1973). The Need for Multiple Indicators in Measuring the Output of Public Agencies. Police Studies Journal, vol.2, no. 1, pp. 85-91.

Park, R.B. (1984). Linking Objective and Subjective Measures of Performance. Public Administration Review, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 118-127.

Parsuraman, A., V.A.Zeithaml, & L.L. Berry (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, vol. 49, fall, pp. 41-50.

Parsuraman, A., V.A.Zeithaml, & L.L. Berry (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, vol. 64, no.1.

Rogerson, P. (1995). Performance Measurement and Policing: Police Service or Law Enforcement Agency? Public Money and Management, October-December, pp. 25-30.

Stuart, F. I. & S.S. Tax (1996). Planning for Service Quality: An Integrative Approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management, vol. 7, Issue 4.

Suttler, G. (1994). Why Bother Using VOC? The Center for Quality Management Journal, vol. 3, no. 2.

Whitehouse, J. (1973). Historical Perspectives on the Police Community Service Function. Journal of Police Science and Administration, pp. 87-92.

Woolpert, S. (1980). Humanizing Law Enforcement: A New Paradigm. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol. 20, pp. 67-80.