Tucson Police Department

1
COPLINK
Tucson Police Department
The University of Arizona
Integrating Law Enforcement Databases In a Secure
Web-Based Intranet
2
Coplink Database User Evaluation

• Rosie Hauck
• Research Associate
• Artificial Intelligence Lab

3
User Centered Design Model for COPLINK
Implementation
Task Analysis/ Functional Analysis
Prototyping
Evaluation
Requirements specification
Conceptual design/ Formal design
4
Purpose of Research Study

• Conduct a evaluation of the Coplink DB
• Looking at aspects of usability
• Use feedback to continue the development efforts
• Compare to current TPD systems
• RMS
• ELVIS (Mug shot DB)
• Gangs

5
Research Strategy

• Experimental Design
• Comparison between RMS and Coplink DB
• Want real work to evaluate
• Data Collection
  Quantitative and Qualitative
• Questionnaires
• In-Depth Interviews
• Direct observation

6
Participants

• 52 Law Enforcement Personnel
• Job classifications
• Sergeants 13
• Detectives 50
• Crime analysts 13
• Patrol Officers 24
• Police units
• Homicide, Adult Sex Assault, Aggravated Assault,
  Auto Theft, Robbery, Burglary, Gangs, Patrol,
  General Crime
• Comfort level with computers
• Very comfortable 10 , Comfortable 48, Neither
  30, Uncomfortable 10, Very uncomfortable 2

7
Data Collection

• Demographic information
• RMS questionnaire on perceived usability
• Coplink DB
• Introduction/Training
• Trials (at least 2 searches)
• Coplink Questionnaire
• Final interview

8
Results

• Usability Questionnaire
• Comparison between RMS and Coplink DB
• Statistical analysis
• Interviews
• Finding general themes
• Suggestions for further system development

9
Defining usability

• Effectiveness
• Impact on Job Performance Productivity
• Accuracy of system
• Effectiveness of information
• Ease of Use
• Effort to use system to learn
• Navigation through the system
• Efficiency
• Interface design
• Speed
• Ability to find info and info organization

10
Questionnaire ResultsEfficiency
Scale 1 Strongly disagree 5 Strongly
agree
Statistically different (p lt 0.00)
11
Questionnaire ResultsEase of Use
Scale 1 Strongly disagree 5 Strongly
agree
Statistically different (p lt 0.00)
12
Questionnaire ResultsEffectiveness
Scale 1 Strongly disagree 5 Strongly
agree
Statistically different (p lt 0.00)
13
Interview results

• Participants asked to
• Comment on the Coplink DB system
• Compare RMS to Coplink DB
• General Themes
• Speed
• Ease of use
• Interface
• Information

14
Interview Theme Speed

• 100 quicker
• Speed is the main strength
• Lead to more work efficiencies
• Saves time
• Get information quicker

15
Interview Theme Ease of Use

• Easier to read/search
• User-friendly
• A lot easier to use
• I could use it without training

16
Interview Theme Interface

• Get bulk of information on one screen
• Less steps to get information
• Flexible to organize sort
• I like colors
• Navigation is easier

17
Interview Theme Information

• A lot more information than RMS
• Enter less information, the more you get
• More effective and efficient
• Interlink between information
• Ties information together

18
Interesting notes

• Notion of increased information
• More an issue of ability to access information in
  usable form
• Ability for all participants to use Coplink
• Coplink on the street - A different perspective
• At substations
• Identification purposes

19
Conclusions

• Results of study
• Support the design and functionality incorporated
  into Coplink DB
• Shows the strengths of the system
• From an end user point of view
• As compared to currently available TPD systems
• Generate interest in Coplink system

20
Future Directions

• Development of deployment plan
• Training issues
• Hardware requirements
• Emphasis on stress testing
• Refining functionality and design

21
Coplink Concept Space Revisited
22
Results Qualitative Investigative Tasks

• Strengths
• Linking known information
• Finding associations with unknown information
• Summary information/quick picture
• Problem area
• Not a records management system

23
Results Qualitative Interface

• Strengths
• Organization and efficiency
• Less cognitive/memory overload
• Speed getting hits and mistakes less crucial
• Problem areas
• Entry format
• Misunderstandings of output
• Incomplete returns
• Updating data

24
Current Direction

• Modification of Interface
• Three-Phase Evaluation Plan
• Phase I - Internal usability and info
  verification
• Phase II - User evaluation sessions
• Phase III.A - Stress-testing (simulation)
• Phase III.B - Limited deployment testing
• Looking towards integration with the DB system

25

• Questions?