Executive Summary

1. Background
   1. Out of Scope
   2. Key Constraints
2. Introduction
   1. Document Approach
3. Supporting Principles
   1. Case Assessment and Interpretation
      1. CAI Benefits
   2. An Approach to Improving Work Processes
4. Implementation
   1. Implementation Strategy
   2. Implementation plan
5. Programmes
   1. Management Information
   2. Performance Management
   3. Research
   4. Client Interactions
   5. Team Restructuring
   6. Technical Plan
   7. Evidence Recovery Unit
   8. Analysis Unit
   9. Reporting Unit
   10. CODIS Management
   11. Quality Plans
   12. Training
   13. Strategic Plans
6. Work Stream Timings / Matrix
7. Programme Costs
8. Risks
9. Next Steps

Appendix A – Recommendations
Appendix B – Management Information Table
Appendix C – Performance Management Table
Appendix D – Research Table
Appendix E – Client Interactions Table
Appendix F – Team Restructuring Table
Appendix G – Technical Plan Table
Appendix H – ERU Table
Appendix I – AU Table
Appendix J – RU Table
Appendix K – CODIS Management Table
Appendix L – Quality Table
Appendix M – Training Table
Appendix N – Strategic Planning Table
Acronym

 

Executive Summary

This document is the fifth and final report of the Biology Systems Review which pulls together the findings and recommendations from the previous documents to provide RCMP with a starting point from which to drive change in the organisation. The 5 goals articulated by RCMP¹ are:

• Strengthening and Improving Client Relationships
• Ensuring efficient and effective use of resources
• Ensuring scientific excellence
• Ensuring highly skilled, motivated and sustainable workforce
• Setting expectations and demonstrating accountability
  

These will be reached by focussing on the following objectives:

• Turn Around Times (TAT’s) that meet PROOF diary dates
• Elimination of all backlog samples
• Raise resource utilisation at an average of 66% for operational staff
• Improved quality process
• Collection of relevant management information
• Implement client communication strategy

To achieve these objectives, FSS have made 62 recommendations which are split into short, medium and long term with an estimated time to completion of 3.5 years, requiring 56 years of resource at an estimated cost of $11 - 15m. These figures are based on the documented assumptions.

A steering committee is proposed to take responsibility for the 3 main Programmes of work; People, Process and Technology. These 3 have been further subdivided into the 13 programmes that will control the 56 delivery projects. A comprehensive project plan shows how the tasks allocated to the projects are interrelated and takes account of task interdependencies.

There are 3 phases of work:

• Short term tasks enable FS&IS to fully understand their reality, provide benchmark data and allow Management Information (MI) to be defined to provide a consistent measure of success over the duration of the programme. These tasks will deliver the most significant improvements to TAT and backlog elimination.

• Medium term tasks will further strengthen the operational position.

• Long term tasks will ensure that the momentum continues to position the FS&IS at the forefront of forensic DNA capability on Local, National and World stages.

It is recommended that FS&IS consider this change programme in a business context, using costs and benefits as a common parlance with business cases used to rationalise the two. A balanced score card approach should be introduced to ensure change takes into account core RCMP principles.

It is of paramount importance that FS&IS has a communication plan that frames this as a cultural change which is supported at all levels of the organisation and is portrayed as natural evolution rather than policy enforced by management.

1. Background

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Forensic Science and Identification Services (FS&IS) has engaged FSS to undertake a review of the FS&IS Biology Systems workflow, analytical DNA profiling processes and support functions with the primary objective of developing a plan to:

• Reduce the DNA processing turnaround times
• Eliminate the casework and DNA analysis backlog
• Provide a system to monitor the ongoing performance of the staff and laboratory  processes

This document is the fifth deliverable and follows on from the submitted ‘AS IS’ Process, Biology Systems Workflow Analysis and Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Process (TO BE) reports.

The ‘AS IS’ Process Report contained a detailed description of the FS&IS Biology Services Directorate laboratory and analytical processes.

The ‘Biology Services Workflow Analysis’ document contained a detailed analysis of the information gathered during the onsite visits and, for each unit involved.

The Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Process presented recommendations to optimise existing processes.

This deliverable develops these recommendations into an implementation plan, providing priorities and requirements to integrate these into the current FS&IS processes.

1.1 Out of Scope

It was agreed that the following areas do not form part of the scope of this review:

• Any review, assessment or analysis of the Volume Crime Unit in Edmonton
• Any review of the Court system beyond the subpoena process for RU staff
• Any in-depth review of the DNA databank processes
• Any review of RCMP laboratory sites other than Ottawa, Vancouver or Halifax
  
  

1.2 Key Constraints

The RCMP stated recommendations should operate within:

• An annual budget of $CDN 15,000,000 including staff salaries and benefits
• Maximum Service Request turnaround time objectives of:

Urgent Category	Other Case Categories	Priority  Cases	Routine Cases
15 days	Murder	25 days	75 days
	Assault	25 days	90 days
	Crimes against the person	60 days	195 days
	Crimes against property	105 days	245 days

• Volume of Service Requests increasing from 6000 (2008/09) to 8000 (2010/11)
• The proposed processes must eliminate the Biology Service Request backlog without creating excess capacity in the DNA analysis system
• Any proposed process must meet accreditation standards ISO 17025 and CAN-P-1578 and CAN-P-4D
• Any proposed analytical (DNA) processes must meet the SWGDAM standards for Forensic DNA testing laboratories
• The scientific validity of any of the forensic procedures must not be compromised

In addition, any proposed processes or work structures must meet:

• Workplace H&S regulations of the Government of Canada, RCMP and Public Service HR Policy
• Federal Government legislation for privacy, security and the criminal code

2. Introduction

This Biology Systems Review Final Report and the associated presentation are the fifth and sixth deliverables of the RCMP Biology Systems Review Work Plan. The aim of this document is to construct an implementation plan, prioritising the recommendations of the Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Process (Appendix A). These recommendations have been developed to form a proposed timeline with estimated cost and resource requirements.

Some of these recommendations are viewed as essential for FS&IS BSD to undertake and will have a direct impact on organisational goals. Other recommendations may be postponed or substituted dependant on emerging needs and changing priorities of the organisation.

2.1 Document Approach

This Biology Systems Review Final Report and the associated Implementation Plan describes the activities required to implement the recommendations outlined in the Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Process. These activities have been grouped into the following programmes:

• Management Information
• Performance Management
• Research Priorities
• Client Interactions
• Team Restructuring
• Technical Plan
• Evidence Recovery Unit
• Reporting Unit
• CODIS Management
• Training
• Quality Recommendations
• Strategic Planning

These programmes, which group together common themes, have outcomes and milestones and have been used to generate the suggested implementation timescale. However, there are many interdependent activities within and between these programmes which will be discussed within this document and illustrated on the associated implementation plan.

These Programmes, which are a more appropriate device to handle activities, are aligned to the People, Process and Technology groupings that have been used throughout the course of this review as follows:

People	Process	Technology
2. Performance Management	1. Management information	6. Technical Plan
5. Team Restructuring	3. Research	7. Evidence Recovery Unit
12. Training	4. Client Interactions	8. Analysis Unit
13. Strategic Plans	10. CODIS Management	9. Reporting Unit
	11. Quality

The numbering for these Programmes represents the suggested order of implementation however, many of these programmes will run concurrently.

3.0 Supporting Principles

There are proprietary principles, used to inform some of the recommendations proposed in the Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Process, that need to be understood. The following provides an insight into the philosophies underpinning these principles.

3.1 Case Assessment and Interpretation

The Forensic Laboratory Report, issued by the Reporting Scientist, is the ‘output’ against which the Investigating Officer and Court judges the professionalism, quality, scientific rigour and impartiality of the forensic service provider. 

The Reporting Scientist is responsible for drawing “rational and balanced inferences from observations, test results and measurements”².  In many instances, this ‘interpretation’ stage is seen as a part of the forensic process which occurs after all forensic examination and testing has been completed. 

Over the last 10 years, FSS scientists³ have developed a model, known as Case Assessment and Interpretation (CAI), which clarifies understanding of the interpretation process.  This approach; “… enables decisions to be made which will deliver a value for money service meeting the needs of the direct customers and the Criminal Justice System”.

CAI is a tool which:

• Is used to devise case strategies
• Assists decision making – cost/time of examination vs. usefulness (value)
• Demonstrates impartiality and transparency
• Provides robust interpretation of scientific findings
• Is based on sound statistical theory

A scientist cannot answer the question “Did the suspect rape this woman?” but rather should address the propositions:

Do the scientific findings support the allegation of rape? or,

Do the scientific findings support an alternative scenario?

For this to be possible, there are a number of prerequisites:

• Excellent communication within the scientific team and between the scientific team and Investigating Officer
• A clear understanding of each other’s requirements
• An agreement of the scientists’ role in this process
• A willingness to consider a staged approach to the scientific examination

The CAI model has three phases:

 

Phase 1 – Customer requirement

The first phase of the CAI model is to determine the customer need; this requires good communication between the scientist and police to understand the complementary roles they have in the investigation.  The scientist will require knowledge of the circumstances in the case to enable him to advise the best forensic strategy.  In addition, the scientists must understand the alternative hypotheses being posed.  Often the situation can be expressed as ‘a prosecution proposition’ and ‘a defence proposition’.  This ensures the scientist takes a balanced view from the outset. 
 
In the CAI model, there are differing ‘levels’ of proposition which address different questions:

• Level 1 – Source,  e.g. these fibres could have originated from that garment
• Level 2 – Activity, e.g. this man has had sexual intercourse with that woman
• Level 3 – Crime, e.g. this man assaulted and raped that woman

This is described as the “Hierarchy of Propositions⁵”.

Phase 2 – Pre-assessment

The second phase of the CAI model – case assessment – requires the Reporting Scientist to formalise the forensic strategy and consider what might be expected from an examination.  It requires clarity about the propositions to be tested. 

For example, if there was a prolonged contact between two persons during an alleged assault and their garments shed their constituent fibres readily, then one might expect to find significant amounts of transferred fibres.

Phase 3 - Delivery

The third phase of the CAI model is operational delivery; turning the strategy into an examination, undertaking the interpretation of the findings in the light of the agreed propositions and composing the final statement.

Generally, the Reporting Scientists can only report objective, or ‘source level’ findings.  These are relatively simple statements of fact such as; “There is blood on this jacket and the DNA profile developed from that bloodstain matches the DNA profile of the suspect”. 

The CAI approach allows the Reporting Scientist to add a huge amount of value to the investigative process by training them to interpret and report their opinions based on the evidence found together with a clear statement of the propositions being considered. 

For example, if in a case of an alleged ‘kicking assault’, blood is found on a shoe and trousers of the suspect X, which is the more valuable statement to the police client?

1. Blood has been detected on the shoes and trousers of X.  A DNA profile has been obtained from this blood which matches that of Y.   This blood could have originated from Y. 
   
   OR
   
   
2. The blood distribution on this shoe and pair of trousers is indicative of a contact stain and spray pattern caused by the wearer kicking a bloodstained object.  The DNA profile obtained from this blood staining is the same as that obtained from the reference sample of Y.   The distribution of blood on the shoe and trousers together with the DNA profiling results obtained is what I would expect if X was involved in kicking Y whilst Y was bleeding heavily.  These results provide very strong evidence to support the account of the alleged assault contained within the witness statement of Y”.

Similarly, consider the situation where X alleges he was assaulted by Y and wrestled to the ground.  The police recovered clothing from X and Y within a couple of hours of the alleged incident taking place.  The scientist examines the clothing and finds no transferred fibres even though the garments shed their constituent fibres very readily.  Which statement is more valuable to the police?

1. I have examined the sweaters of X and Y and have not found any transfer of fibres. 
   
   OR
   
   
2. I have examined the outer clothing (sweaters) of X and Y.  Both of the sweaters shed their constituent fibres very readily.  I understand that X alleges he was assaulted by Y and wrestled to the ground. Y denies the incident occurred.  I further understand the police seized the garments a matter of hours after the alleged incident. 

If such a close contact had taken place I would expect to find appreciable quantities of fibres to be transferred between these pullovers.  Given that no such fibres transfer has been seen, the findings provide strong support for the account contained within the statement of Y.

In each case statement 1 represents a ‘Source’ level report while statement 2 represents an ‘Activity’ level report.  It is our experience that, once fully immersed in the model, clients appreciate the value of the latter form.

 

3.1.1 CAI Benefits

The Case Assessment and Interpretation model supports the FS&IS Biology Services Directorate Workflow Processes by:

• Underpinning the recommended organisational changes
• Reinforcing the enhanced role of the Reporting Scientists
• Requiring close communication with the Investigating Officer to agree case strategy
• Assisting the decision making process – better efficiency of item examination
• Demonstrating impartiality and transparency in the forensic process

 

3.2 An Approach to Improving Work Processes

Generally speaking, a ‘typical’ forensic biology process might look like this:

The FS&IS Biology Services Directorate undertake a series of tasks which are linked to form the forensic process.  The ‘forensic tasks’ shown in the diagram above are undertaken by a variety of teams; CPSIC, CRU, Evidence Recovery Unit, Analysis Unit and Reporting Scientists.  The police client has little involvement in this process.

FSS recommends an approach to process improvement designed by a commercial company, Work Structuring Ltd⁶.  This involves detailed process mapping to identify the ‘added value’ of each process step, i.e. how far does each step take you towards the required outcome of the entire process.  This methodology provides understanding of steps in the process that should be streamlined, removing redundant steps and those which add little or no value.  It also allows processes to be grouped together, an important step when considering a more efficient organisational design.  By identifying the key ‘value-adding’ steps in the process and the activities that exist to support them, it is possible to break the process into “whole tasks” i.e. elements that can be completed by one team. 

In most forensic processes, we can identify just three steps:

• Converting the customer’s problem into a forensic strategy
• Converting the strategy into a ‘result’
• Converting the results into a ‘solution’ for the customer

The Work Structuring Ltd approach is to involve the operational teams in the process review so that every team should be able to take ownership of a key value-adding part of the process.  Primary benefits are:

• team ownership
• accountability
• performance management
• reduced risk at the points where work is handed from one unit to another as these occur at low-risk (non value-adding) steps in the process 
• creation of teams aligned to the processes

The Work Structuring principle is to maximise team working and flexibility while maintaining a balance with the personal needs of individuals.  It is suggested that teams should contain not less than four and not more than twenty staff members.  This includes people with the appropriate skills to fill all the required roles to run a team; the team leader, scientific staff, administrators and technical support.  The objective is to create a team that has all the required decision-making responsibilities within it.   In this way the team can ‘control’ their work and own their element of the workflow process. The exact size of the team is dependent on the complexity of work owned by the team.

Note: this principle of team structure applies at all levels of the organisation from Board level to operational delivery

Structuring a team in this way allows the team to plan, carry out and evaluate the impact of their work; empowering the team and allowing them to control the ‘added value’ element of their process at the same time removing layers of ‘management’

To support the FS&IS ‘purpose’, as stated in the three year strategic plan 2007-2010⁷, FSS proposes applying these principles to the Biology Services Directorate team structure to bring Reporting Scientists and Evidence Recovery Units together as Case Reporting Teams.  These teams should be very closely aligned to the Analysis Units to deliver the total Biology Services Workflow Process. 

The staff in the current Reporting Unit in Halifax could be part of such an RS/ERU case reporting team while working remotely from their colleagues providing the communications systems; LIMS, email and video conferencing were sufficient to allow ‘real time’ interaction and data transfer.

The responsibilities of the proposed Case Reporting Team should span creation of the case strategy with the client, receipt and primary examination of exhibits through preparation of DNA samples.  The Analysis Unit would carry out the DNA profiling tests as directed with the Reporting Scientists completing the interpretation of all results and compose the Forensic Laboratory Report.  This is shown diagrammatically below: 

4. Implementation

This section outlines the strategy and plan to deliver the required change to FS&IS Biology Services Directorate to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Executive Summary.  The basis of the required change is derived from the recommendations provided in the Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Process which are also shown in Appendix A for ease of reference. 

4.1 Implementation Strategy

The degree of change required to enable the BSD to meet their goals and objectives is significant and should not be underestimated.  In order to successfully deliver a change programme of this scale a clear, well structured governance process will be required.  It is recommended that FS&IS BSD establish a Programme Board (oversight group) to oversee implementation of the overall change programme, and set the governance.   This Programme Board should have the authority to make decisions and commit resources. This board should be lead by a senior executive who will have overall responsibility to ensure business benefits are realised. This Programme Board may be separated to form a committee of members with expertise aligned to the three programmes, people, process and technology, to give guidance to each component programme.

Each Programme is split into Projects which manage groups of related activities that are focused on delivering particular business benefits. Project managers will be required to manage each of the projects within the Programmes and will be responsible for delivering an outcome capable of achieving a business benefit.

It has to be realised that a number of projects and or activities may well straddle a number of Programmes and or projects. This is normal and requires close communication and cooperation between project groups to work in harmony and avoid confusion.  These interdependencies will be managed by the Programme Managers for the 3 Programmes.  A suggested organisational structure is outlined below:

 

Change needs to be implemented in a controlled fashion such that the expected benefit of each deliverable can be validated before the next change is made in such a way as to build momentum in the desired direction toward the goals avoiding the need to go back and readjust a process or system that is already in place. The detailed project plan will ensure that activities occur in the right order and the risk register (see section 8) provides the assurance against predictable deviations. In turn, the issues log will report the overall status of the change programme.

It will be the responsibility of the assigned project managers to validate the individual project plans and verify the timescales. Once these are approved by the Programme Board, the Project Manager will be responsible for delivering the project related change to the business.  A Change Agent should be appointed for each project.  Change Agents are usually operational managers.  These Change Agents will be responsible for ensuring the business realises the benefits from the implemented change. To quantify the success of the project it is essential that success is defined at project inception.  These definitions should be based not only on the time, quality & cost of the project delivery but also on the resulting operational benefits.

Certain projects may require the appointment of Change Champions.  This role should not be confused with that of the Change Agent.  The Change Champion should be a member of staff whose opinion is respected within the group of individuals most affected by the change and can act as a catalyst of acceptance to the change.  In essence they will become behavioural leaders for their particular change. A classic example of this is the use of RS champions during the change of reporting mechanisms.  A Change Agent is the person responsible for ensuing the benefits of the change are realised by the business.  The two roles will work closely together, with the project manager, to ensure the ultimate success of the project.

It is important that the business has a common language in which to discuss change and its associated benefits. This parlance must be applicable to all aspects of work both within FS&IS and among the client base. It must reflect both value and effort and be the ultimate yardstick against which progress is measured. The most obvious candidate is financial impact. Understanding the costs associated with each aspect of the business and considering measures which either reduce them or provide better client value will drive toward the attainment of a number of goals. This needs to be a comprehensive system whereby all costs are taken into account e.g. people, equipment, consumables, lost opportunity, overheads etc. Without such a system it will be difficult to demonstrate the increased value that change will deliver.

To assist in the evaluation of project priorities against other projects and the delivery of ‘business as usual’ it is recommended that a Prioritisation Matrix be constructed.  This matrix should score projects against the following key criteria:

• impact of resulting benefits towards BSD goals and objectives,
• project cost,
• resource required for delivery,
• priority against existing projects
• level of risk

4.2 Implementation plan

Several factors can influence the delivery of a project to time, quality and cost, and the ability to reap the resulting benefits.  For this change programme the main factors will be:

• the balance between maintaining operational capacity while delivering change,
• the degree of complexity involved in each implementation,
• validation requirements,
• accreditation requirements,
• the volume of staff affected by each change,
• degree of support for each change,
• the sequence of project implementations.

Managing these factors will be critical to achieve a successful delivery.  The outline project plan makes assumptions as to the management of these and should be viewed as a tool to enable the development of the BSD Project Plan.  As the transition to the BSD project plan from the outline occurs each of the key factors should be tested to ascertain the optimum balance to achieve the end goals. 

The most critical of these is the balance between operational capacity and delivering change.  In order to realise the Programme’s benefits as rapidly as possible it is suggested that the delivery of change takes priority over ‘business as usual’ operational capacity.  This will be a key decision for the Programme Board.

The outline project plan prioritises the projects against short, medium and long term requirements.  These are primarily based on the contribution the project benefits make towards reducing TAT and eliminating the backlog.

The outline plan⁸, to deliver the required business change as detailed in the recommendations from the Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Process, is predicted to run for ~3.5 years.   The short term projects will require initiation within the first 6 months of programme commencement, the medium term projects start after approximately 15 to 18 months, and, the longer term projects require prolonged activity and should be started as early as possible but are likely to take 3 to 3.5 years to deliver. A high level view of the overall programme is shown below:

5.0 Programmes

There follows an explanation of each programme, in the order shown above, and how it relates to the recommendations shown in Appendix A.

5.1 Management Information

Recommendation numbers: 49, 45, 48, 50, 42, 6, 52, 53.

Prior to commencing any changes, to a process or team, it is essential to fully understand the starting point or baseline from which changes will be made and hence from where all improvements will be measured. For this reason, FS&IS must have a complete picture of all data that will be affected by the change programme.

These data should reflect key information to provide an accurate health check of the processes at any given time. Aligning these measures to a balanced scorecard approach will enable FS&IS to identify areas where direct management intervention and hence influence, is necessary to maintain alignment to corporate principles.

FS&IS should undertake a review period to interrogate and set definitions for pertinent management information, e.g. what constitutes successful profile or contamination event, and determine how these will be measured, setting realistic targets and parameters to measure success.

This data consolidation period will require input from a wide range of sources, involving participation of unit managers who must gain a full understanding of operational management information, for example, baselining operational abstractions.  Only time spent actively progressing a case should be classed as operational, with all other functions viewed as abstractions. This exercise will result in greater clarity of the changes which are necessary to reduce the processing TAT. Any time spent outside of operational usage should be assessed to identify the cost / benefit analysis of the abstraction over the benefit of operational activities.

A full understanding of the true cost base should be undertaken at this time. Prior to commencing the review, a definition of the organisational costs, which will contribute to this figure, must be defined and standardised. Although it is appreciated that RCMP are, at present, not acting in a commercial environment, understanding of the cost base will allow FS&IS to improve cost efficiencies and potentially use any cost savings to process additional service requests without increasing their cost base.

Methods for data collection and reporting requirements must be defined and aligned to the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) which will act as challenging targets for each unit and individual, to drive the business towards its organisational goals. Once this has been accomplished, FS&IS should embark on a consolidation period to understand the current organisational performance. This could well take up to 6 months to gather data across all processing lines and supporting organisational units. Statistical analysis of this data should be undertaken to define targets and baseline measures across FS&IS. The process which will be used for future collection of this information should be documented and compliance should form part of an individuals annual objectives.

FSS identify this as a critical milestone to allow controlled and measureable progress.

In the medium term, it may be prudent to initiate a troubleshooting function, responsible for collating processing data to detect trends or issues symptomatic of inefficient or defective processes.

Key milestones:

• Key performance indicators defined
• Data capture processes implemented
• 6 month consolidation process completed
  
  

5.2 Performance Management

Recommendation numbers: 46, 47

There is a relationship to Recommendations 7 & 16; these are dealt with in the team structuring program.

Completion of the Management Information Programme will define measures and set challenging targets to drive FS&IS towards its organisational goals. Being crucial to the success of the organisation, the achievement of, and contribution to these goals should be rewarded appropriately. There are many staff benefit schemes that can be employed but one that links annual salary increases to contribution and achievement of targets is highly effective. This requires staff objectives to be set up front and monitored throughout the course of the year. It is essential that this process is transparent, measurable and objective for all staff. Line managers must own this process but it is the responsibility of both the line manager and the employee to ensure the process is followed accurately.

The following activities in the implementation plan are relevant:

• Set performance measures for each role, within each unit
• Review process with appropriate officials
• Brief staff on the introduction of individual performance management using KPI’s
• Implement individual performance management using KPI’s

Advice may be sought from performance management consultants to aid in the design and development of KPIs and the integration of performance management best practices. Negotiations to define pay parameters within achievement levels should be undertaken with participation from union equivalent officials and with approval from the Treasury Board Secretariat. The existing annual review process could be amended to include ‘SMART’ (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) objectives and be more closely aligned to role descriptions.

Key milestones:

• Initiation of performance management aligned to KPI’s
• Initiation of formalised performance management process
  
  

5.3 Research

Recommendation numbers: 40, 39, 15, 19, 41

The temporary suspension of pay barrier projects would immediately release more operational capacity from existing trained staff. This additional resource could then be targeted towards bottleneck areas. 

Suspension of this process will require authorisation from the Treasury Board Secretariat who should therefore be consulted in all actions pertaining to these projects. A suitable alternative compensation package may need to be considered.

All Research projects should be subject to a full business case which contextualises the business benefits of the project against the resource and cost requirements of performing the work and relates these to the other projects either underway or pending.

Efficient and focussed research and development of new techniques and technologies is essential for the continued success of FS&IS. Two research projects specifically highlighted are ‘optimisation of sample material placed in tubes at ERU’ and ‘feasibility of FS&IS utilising only electronic data management processes’. Both projects have the potential to greatly improve resource utilisation by removing redundant steps from the processing line. Both the development and integration of these and any other changes into operational environments must be performed in a controlled and focussed manner aimed at delivering defined business benefits. Delivery in accordance to recognised project methodologies should aid this.

Certain project methodologies also provide a detailed implementation / hand over model, providing examples and templates of formal acceptance documentation. In conjunction with the creation of a change agent role, implementation of new techniques will be smoothed allowing quicker realisation of the business benefits (refer to section 4.1 for a fuller description of the Change Agent role).

As all projects must be fully auditable, compliance with a defined project methodology is recommended.

Additional research projects are listed under the ERU and AU sections of the project plan.

5.4 Client Interactions

Recommendation numbers: 4, 51, 5, 55, 2, 54

The Client Consultation exercise indicated there is a disparity between services provided by the FS&IS and expectations of police clients. It is clear police client requirements vary between geographic locations and that better communication is essential.

Laboratories should be open for the receipt of exhibits at times required by clients, both on a daily and weekly schedule, rather than those times that best fit with FS&IS.

There should be a communication policy in place to document discussions and decisions made around the formulation of the case strategy. This needs to be understood by both laboratory and client and strictly adhered to.

A methodology that defines a forensic strategy for any given case should replace the 8 exhibit rule. One such is the Case Assessment and Interpretation (CAI) framework as described in section 3.1

The creation of a Client Relationship Officer (CRO) role would aid in closing the communication gap. The CRO would be responsible for a defined number of police clients. This role would be the central point of contact for all service and client relationship issues and be responsible for understanding the client requirements and ensuring FS&IS meet these.

Client Relationship Officers will be central to a number of workshops which should be held with police clients. There are several areas for attention for these workshops including:

• defining the exact requirement for the CSLO role and the qualifications and experience needed to deliver this. These workshops should be held with a select number of forces to gain an agreed consensus for the role.
• establishing the submissions requirements. These should be held individually with forces to improve the understanding of their priorities and targets.
• definition and agreement of the communication channels between police clients and FS&IS across a variety of circumstances. Roles and named individuals should be identified.

Each series of workshops should be held according to a defined schedule with clear intended outcomes and all relevant stakeholders included, ensuring maximum benefit is achieved.

The duration of the series of workshops will be greatly influenced by the numbers chosen for participation by FS&IS. It is recommended that these initiatives are performed as pilot projects, in the first instance, and rolled out to further clients upon successful progress.

Greater clarity is required around the CSLO role with the benefits fully explained to clients that have a mixed or negative view of the role. FS&IS will need to monitor performance and customer satisfaction closely to ensure the maximum value is derived.

To maximise the value provided by CPSIC the staff need to be appropriately trained in the disciplines on which they are advising. This has close links to the CAI methodology and should be considered as part of the forensic case strategy formulation.

Relationships with clients can be greatly enhanced by joint projects in the form of pilot studies. This has 2 immediate benefits; firstly, FS&IS gain a better insight into client issues and secondly, the client has a real chance to influence change.

Key milestones:

• Initiation of revised submissions process
• Initiation of Client Relationship Officers
• Initiation of Client Pilot projects
  

5.5 Team Restructuring

Recommendation numbers: 7, 16, 17, 18

Teams need to have a flatter structure with clearly delineated roles and responsibilities. Each role and activity within the team needs to add value to the production process else be considered a cost. The “To Be” document clearly sets forth appropriate structures for each team. A priority for this programme group will be the question of how best to measure and reward individual performance. This needs to be linked in some way to the activities that focus on production. At the same time the value of a team, as a unit, must be recognised in the wider organisational structure. This paradox is resolved by considering sub-goals that contribute to the main team outputs as follows:

 

In this example there are 2 team goals by which the team, as a unit are measured. Within the team there are 2 individuals each of who have 2 sub goals by which they are measured. The important point here is the individual goals build to constitute the team goals. In short if every team member delivers the team delivers. However, even if the team goals are missed, individuals can still achieve their personal goals.

The work structuring principles highlight the importance of teams taking responsibility for the production of a recognisable product. In the case of FS&IS this will the form of a transformation. The team takes in information and items and produces a product of greater value that becomes the starting point for the next team. This has 2 major advantages; the team now owns a recognisable portion of the process and the risk at the hand over points is reduced as there are no partially complete tasks.

For maximum efficiency at minimum risk it is desirable that as many staff as possible have an in depth knowledge of both automated and manual processing lines

Key milestones:

• New team structures implemented
• Teams responsible for complete transformations
• Staff appropriately cross-trained
  
  

5.6 Technical Plan

Recommendation numbers: 24, 25, 23

The following section describes the technical actions required to realise the benefits of the recommendations contained within the Optimised FS&IS Biology Systems Workflow. It is essential for FS&IS to prioritise their strategy with regards to implementation of the technical recommendations. These improvements may be introduced individually to realise the benefits more quickly or in conjunction with one another, to potentially reduce the overall timescale and maximise the value of system and third party validations.

As quality is paramount to all operational processes, recommendation 25 – reviewing anti-contamination procedures should be performed immediately in conjunction with the revised management information and performance metrics processes including frequent and consistent batch and environmental monitoring.

Full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) should be used in all laboratories, by all staff and visitors. This should be reinforced by clear documented procedures and be compulsory for all laboratory work. All staff should have an in depth understanding and appreciation of anti-contamination procedures and be responsible for adherence to these. Effectiveness of these policies will be verified by environmental monitoring.

Batch set-up protocols, which will be used when revising batching rules, should reflect the possibility of splash over contamination in all directions. This will be supported by cross batch inspection at the interpretation stage, when an Analytical Officer will check the batch as a whole and examine the batch controls including reagent blanks for all batches.

Efficiency and timeliness of sample profiling will be addressed through the clear and concise documentation of all reprocessing procedures. This should be reinforced during a series of workshops with all key stakeholders, across all sites, which will define and standardise the rules for all reprocessing scenarios. These rules need to be clearly documented and in line with the newly defined performance measures.

The timescale for changes to be implemented into the operational processes, as described below, and the unit to which they will apply, based on the new workflow process, should also be considered when defining these rules. It may be necessary for all staff to undertake a refresher training course to appreciate the new regulations. This may be integrated with training performed as part of the new workflow alignment. Supporting documentation should be readily available and regularly reviewed and updated to support all staff in this process.

This will result in a well defined and standardised rule set which should be applied across all FS&IS sites and used as a baseline for future monitoring and trend detection.

Key milestones:

• Continued compliance with the newly implemented measures demonstrating the quality of the procedures in place.
  
  

5.7 Evidence Recovery Unit

Recommendation numbers: 11, 12, 13, 10, 9, 14, 56

For ERU to own a complete transformation, sample preparation duties, specifically relating to differential extraction of semen samples, need to be transferred in from AU. It is envisaged that reassigning these tasks will cause minimal disruption to the process as it involves transfer of a minimal amount of laboratory equipment and additional training for staff.  A number of staff can be identified to undertake the first training programmes and perform component validation. Upon completion of training for all staff, system validation is performed to record integration of the new protocol into the process. All relevant SOP documentation must be updated and reissued to accurately reflect changes in protocol.

It is important to note that, where required, third party accreditation should be obtained by undertaking the appropriate level of assessment. Subject to local requirements, compliance to these regulations should be performed upon introduction of any new process.

Any change to a body fluid protocol should be preceded by a workshop to determine the most appropriate testing method, followed by a defined research project with clear targets to be met. Training courses for staff must be developed in the new processes which clearly communicate the benefits of the new system, allowing staff to gain a greater understanding of their work.

The processing of reference samples should be reviewed to assess the feasibility of utilising redundant capacity on the COI line. A management decision will be required to commit to a project which will develop processes enabling this. Due to the parliamentary involvement in COI operations, appropriate representation at these discussions should be sought. Similarly a series of training, validation and accreditation stages must be performed prior to implementation.

Key milestones:

• A reduction in processing time across several sample types
• Streamlined use of resource, releasing additional processing capacity
• Potential to reduce backlog samples utilising alternative capacity
  
  

5.8 Analysis Unit

Recommendation numbers: 21, 26, 20, 28, 27, 29, 22

One of the most significant recommendations for reducing the processing time of a sample will be the integration of an automated sample batching process. Although this may require an extensive consolidation period to validate scientific theory, the result will maximise the benefits of a standardised and consistent application of validated batching rules. To realise these benefits in an efficient manner, the integration of this process must be a coordinated succession of the stages involved:

• Document complete batching rules according to quality requirements and sample prioritisation
• Create User Requirement (combined software and hardware)
• Investigate software options for automated batching and integration with existing technologies
• Programme software to apply batching rules to create export file
• Select hardware
• Design robotic protocols
• Component Validation to test new batching software application and hardware integration
• System Validation
• Pilot Period

The batching rules must be documented and signed off by all key stakeholders and reflect the anti-contamination protocols defined during the early technical phase (section 5.1). Independent to these batching rules, the user requirement document will be created to fully articulate the software and hardware input and output requisites of the process. It is possible to develop these requirements independently, however, a unified development helps to reduce divergence of the requirements from the common aims. Only once the requirement document has been written and agreed can the various software options be investigated. Simultaneously, selection of the most appropriate hardware can be undertaken, followed by development of hardware protocols. These software and hardware components should then be integrated into one system, tested and validated as one component. Subsequently, SOP documentation will be updated and staff can be trained in the new process.

This process must undergo system and third party validation which may be performed at this point in the process or delayed to integrate with the development of other process improvements. This is a strategic decision which must be made by FS&IS, based on priorities of benefit realisation and overall timescale.

It is recommended that this processing change is rolled out at one site at a time. Once a steady processing state is achieved for the initial roll out, introduction at other sites can be undertaken.

As a result of these activities, Analysis Units will be able to greatly reduce time spent processing a sample, reducing the batching process by a number of hours, helping to drive down TATs. The improved consistency contributes to the improved quality of the whole system.

Another large scale change to the AU involves the optimisation of lysis and extraction protocols. Although these are two distinct processes, the combination of these protocols will enable better staff utilisation, releasing additional operational hours which will, in turn, contribute to addressing the backlog.  In addition this removes the repetitive process of scanning each plate and each tube onto and off the rack, reducing the overall processing time. FSS recognise that certain processes can be simpler when performed manually. As a result, this protocol may be supported by manual movements where necessary. However, these manual interactions must be kept to a minimum and the problem of large scale repetitive scanning must be addressed, to realise optimisation and quality benefits. The following actions should be applied:

• Define desired lysis outcome
• Design experiments
• Perform experiments
• Select optimised process
• Component Validation
• Development of protocols to combine lysis and extraction on single run
• Component Validation
• Update SOP documentation
• Staff training 1
• Staff training 2

The resulting increase in staff availability and reduction in processing time will contribute to process improvements, however, it must be decided if these will be implemented as part of a large transformation programme or as an independent project with distinct system and third party validations.

It is important that all recommendations are considered in conjunction with those that are related. This is particularly relevant when considering the implementation of robotic arms. In conjunction with the combination of lysis and extraction on a single deck, the implementation of foil seals and revision of reprocessing methods, the benefits of implementing a robotic arm are increased, resulting in more efficient use of operational time.

Upon successful validation and integration of these step improvements the system should be reviewed to identify the most efficient scheduling process to be employed. This applies to both robotic equipment and staff utilisation efficiencies. Schedules should be rolled out locally and reviewed to ensure the logistics are optimum. These schedules should be shaped by processing needs and capacity maximisation and not modelled around staff break and leaving times. The integration of extended working hours would have a large effect on the operating capacity of a unit. Timing schedules must be reconfigured to exploit the additional resource.

Key milestones:

• Implementation of several improvements resulting in a reduction in processing time
• Streamlined use of resource, releasing additional processing capacity
• Potential to reduce backlog samples utilising alternative capacity
  
  

5.9 Reporting Unit

Recommendation numbers: 3, 30, 8, 62, 32, 31

It is essential the value of activity level reporting (see section 3.1 – CAI) is explained to the wider criminal justice system to ensure integration into the process. This must be done with the support and understanding of police clients and court personnel.  To facilitate this, a series of workshops should be held with all key stakeholders, explaining the contribution of each role to the process.

All Reporting Scientists must undertake a training programme to gain competency to report at activity level. This will include principles of probability, assessing case details in the context of the various hypotheses offered and appreciating how the evidential value can be best expressed in a court environment. A Reporting Scientist must know precisely all the information they require to evaluate results and report findings. This training can be lead by nominated activity reporting champions, selected for their ability to lead and encourage all teams to develop processes to incorporate this change into working practices.

The depth of understanding required for activity level reporting is achieved by the increased involvement of Reporting Scientists throughout a case lifecycle afforded by being the main point of contact for Investigating Officers for a specified case, acting as an internal case manager and defining the case strategy with all personnel involved.

Acting in this way as coordinator, the Reporting Scientist will be addressing a large gap in police clients needs. A Reporting Officer will be nominated for a case, based on their availability, upon receipt of C-414 to the CPSIC team. This Reporting Scientist will review the information available and liaise with the Investigating Officer to get a full understanding of the circumstances surrounding the case and an appreciation of the various scenarios the police clients are trying to address, whether any defence scenario has been offered, and any other pertinent case information.

As internal case manager a Reporting Scientist will be responsible for amalgamating all case information within the FS&IS, spanning disciplines, if necessary. It is essential the expected diary dates for a case are closely monitored by the Reporting Scientist and met unless there are extenuating circumstances. Case progress should be communicated to clients by the Reporting Scientists supported by the Client Relationship Officers who will be aware of client requirements.

Directing the case strategy within the operational units is a primary responsibility of the Reporting Scientists. The experience and oversight of the Reporting Scientist is employed to maximise investigative potential of exhibits. A strategy discussion will be held between the Reporting Scientist and Search Technologist to define the most probative exhibits and tests. Other pertinent information should as fibre or fingerprint preservation will also be documented and recorded in LIMS. This should be an ongoing communication between the Search Technologist and Reporting Scientist before, during if necessary and after exhibit examination.

It is essential to balance the responsibilities of the Reporting Scientist with these additional requirements. All tasks currently performed by Reporting Scientists which do not make use of their experience should be performed by other members of staff. The introduction of phased reporting will ensure that maximum investigative value is provided with minimum operational time.

In conjunction with recommendation 17, suggesting Analytical Officers become responsible for performing profile analysis, and recommendation 24 – the revision of reprocessing procedures, any lack of automation awareness amongst Reporting Scientists must be addressed by training. Given the new role responsibilities of Reporting Scientists it is essential they are fully aware of the practices, procedures and limitations of both the automated line and organic extraction stream. This additional awareness training can be built into activity reporting training and undertaken as an additional module.

Rework constitutes a significant to the organisation. Clearly, there will be situations where it is necessary but these should be well understood and the policy should be part of the training of Reporting Officers. There is no reason why the rework rates across the FS&IS should not be consistent.

Key milestones:

• Definition of criminal justice system requirements for activity level reporting
• Achievement of activity reporting competence
• Integration of case manager role into laboratory practices
  
  
  Top of Page
  
  

5.10 CODIS Management

Recommendation numbers: 33, 34

A thorough audit of the use of local databanks should be undertaken to address any inconsistencies in loading criteria which should be interrogated to assess their validity, relevance to current practices and quality standards. Any unjustified discrepancies should be rectified immediately. Processes should be established to ensure that any changes to criteria proposed in future undergo rigorous review panels and, if approved, are rolled out across local databases.

Once all loading criteria and processes have been defined, a centrally located team should be created to undertake all CODIS loading and match reporting functions. These activities support the statement that Reporting Scientists operational time should not be taken performing tasks which do not require their experience and expertise.

The creation of a dedicated team to perform these administrative duties should be co-ordinated with the initiation of case manager responsibilities for Reporting Scientists. Staff required to deliver this role must have an appreciation of the impact of the work being performed. This may be through experience and knowledge of the system or via a training course designed especially for this function. Localisation of this team will allow greater consistency of application of rules for loading and result in a centre of excellence for CODIS administration.

Key milestones:

• Defined rule sets and processes for local CODIS databank loading criteria
• Creation of CODIS administration team and completion of training for all members
• Handover of administrative duties from CODIS administrator volunteers
  
  

5.11 Quality Plans

Recommendation numbers: 43, 44

The revised role responsibilities, in line with working practices, include ensuring each member of staff is responsible for the quality of their units’ outputs. This increased responsibility must be supported by a quality management process that is well documented and clearly defined. Each member of staff must have a clear understanding of the process and how this integrates into their daily tasks.

A communication protocol for publicising changes to the quality management process should be defined. Any amendments to quality documentation should be communicated to all members of staff who need to give confirmation that it is read and understood. Adherence to these procedures should be monitored as part of an individual’s performance management and measured using KPI’s.

Key milestones:

• Improved communication of quality issues
  
  

5.12 Training

Recommendation numbers: 35, 36, 37, 38

The options presented in the Optimised FS&IS Biology Services Workflow Report are dependant on the FS&IS assessment of their long term training requirements.  The assessment needs to consider routine staff turnover, the scale of implementation of new/revised techniques and alternative methods for the provision of training services such as the use of outsourced training providers.  Once the most appropriate option has been chosen a project plan should be built to deliver this into the business. 
 
During the training review the suitability of the current training material needs to be considered.  Specific staff should be nominated to revise the training material and ensure it is appropriately aligned to business need and current forensic best practice.  

Key milestones:

• Decision on the optimal training platform
• Implement optimal training platform
• All training documentation reviewed
  
  

5.13 Strategic Plans

Recommendation numbers: 59, 57, 58, 60, 61

Housing specialist processing units separately provides for centres of excellence and concentration of knowledge. In turn this promotes best practice leading to greater efficiencies.

A contingency plan needs to be written that efficiently deals with the ‘excess capacity’ that will be available once the backlog has been eliminated. Failure to do so will result in excess cost in the system.  One option is to allow for an increase in service request submission volumes especially from clients whose submissions are currently gated.

As previously explained in section 4, businesses must understand their costs. This is true for both FS&IS and its clients. This knowledge allows a sensible discussion to take place around the true value of any action. The natural progression of this thinking is a charging regime negotiated between supplier and client. This after all is what we are all used to in normal every day life. At the outset, this necessarily need only be a notional system building to a full charging model once all the variables are understood.

Key milestones:

• Decision on the creation of specialist processing units
• Defining the cost base of FS&IS
  
  

6. Work Stream Timings/Matrix

The associated Implementation Plan demonstrates the interdependencies between the actions required to undertake each project. In order to demonstrate contribution of these tasks towards business benefits a matrix can be created.

Appendices B – N are individual tables grouped according to programmes of work. These will be provided electronically as part of this deliverable. This will enable FS&IS to categorise each recommendation and its associated tasks according to FS&IS requirements by viewing the data in a number of ways, including sorting tasks according to; implementation timescale, contribution to goals and prioritisation.

7. Programme Costs

In order to determine the approximate costs of the total programme, the amount of man-days required for each task was assessed in terms of senior management, management and staff effort.  A programme cost calculator was constructed to compile these data to obtain an estimate of the total investment required.

The calculator indicates the following:

Category of time	Senior Management	Management	Staff	Total
Days Years	736 3.5	2285 11	8866 42	11887 56.5

Cost table	per annum	Fully built up	Total>
Senior Management	$ 140,000	$ 210,000	$ 725,094
Management	$ 100,000	$ 150,000	$ 1,613,561
Staff	$ 75,000	$ 112,500	$ 4,704,614
Consultancy	$ 1,000,000		$ 2,000,000
Capital equipment	$ 200,000		$ 200,000
Materials	$ 13,000		$13,000
Sub-total			$ 9,256,269
Contingency	0.2		$ 1,851,254
Total			$ 11,107,523

The main assumptions and supporting information used in the Programme cost calculator are:

1. A man-year of effort equates to 212 work days
2. The main elements included in the costings are
   1. All staff time associated with the implementation of the project including operational staff and trainers
   2. R&D activity related to the project
   3. Management time to oversee the project
   4. No business as usual operational time during pilot phases
   5. Time of external stakeholders during workshops
3. Assumptions on staff numbers and the number of units are based on those shown in the cost calculator (based on “As Is” data)
4. Assumes all staff are 100% available when required
5. Fully built up costs equates to those costs the business incurs while employing a member of staff, beyond pure salary costs

By using the Programme costs calculator any changes to the resource requirement or the underlying assumptions can be easily modified.

It should be noted that the project plan and associated costs are based on the knowledge the FSS has gained during this review. FS&IS will need to develop a revised project plan and costs, based on those supplied, as other factors including previous experience of implementing change into their environment will need to be taken into account to build a final project plan and cost base.

8. Risks

FSS perceive the key risks to successful delivery of this programme as being:

1. Staff are not available to deliver the required change
   
   Mitigation: Establish the priority of operational delivery vs change implementation and ensure all key managers are aware of the priority
   
   
2. Funding is not available to deliver the required change
   
   Mitigation:  Compile a business case for the change programme that expresses the return on investment that the expenditure will bring
   
   
3. The projects are not delivered to the required timeline
   
   Mitigation: Ensure all key projects are managed by experienced project managers, all resource is made available as per the agreed resource plan, and, all issues are resolved in a timely manner.
   
   
4. The expected benefits are not realised
   
   Mitigation:  Appoint Change Agents to manage the realisation of the agreed benefits
   
   
5. Stakeholders are resistant to change
   
   Mitigation: Appoint Change Champions to help influence key stakeholder groups

FSS manage risks via a ‘risk register’ an example of which is shown in Appendix O.

9. Next Steps

It is important that the senior management have a change programme in which they not only believe but in which they have a personal stake. It is imperative this cultural shift is seen to come from the very core of the organisation and these individuals “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”. Thus, the starting point is to appoint the key individuals to the programme groups and task them with production of detailed plans that are practical within the limits of the organisation. It should be stressed that these individuals should be the right people not just the available people. If this is not right, the next 3.5 years could be wasted.

FSS suggest the entire organisation is trawled for those individuals who are capable, persuasive, tolerant and have the energy and drive to see the task through. The effort required to make the necessary changes should not be underestimated. This phase could be conducted at the same time as the definition and collection of base data management information.

It may be prudent to enlist the assistance of specialist organisations that can assist FS&IS on its journey to the next level. Choice of organisation is important as they will be a partner for the duration of the programmes.

Appendix A – Recommendations

1. All CPSIC staff should be cross trained in all forensic disciplines
2. FS&IS should review the CSLO role.
3. Reporting Scientist’s to take responsibility for defining the case strategy.
4. Extend time available to submit cases to the laboratory.
5. FS&IS should implement a review process to assess the submissions for each case. This would replace the 8 exhibit submission rule.
6. FS&IS should monitor time utilisation closely for a defined period to understand operational abstractions.
7. FS&IS review the roles and responsibilities within the Evidence Recovery Unit.
8. Case strategy is further defined in consultations between the Search Technologist and Reporting Scientist.
9. FS&IS to investigate a ‘standard’ sexual offence kit for use in the processing of criminal casework in Canada.
10. FS&IS should introduce an amended semen extraction procedure.
11. FS&IS modify the ERU process such that the cell harvesting and sample preparation (differential extraction), is carried out within the Evidence Recovery Unit.  The ERU will present the Analysis Unit with fully prepared and labelled samples.
12. FS&IS should refine the blood examination procedure. This includes discontinuing the use of the Haemochromogen crystal test for routine blood confirmation and an alternative presumptive test for the presence of blood.
13. FS&IS should reassess the saliva examination protocol including introduction of a Phadebas/moist paper technique for the location of potential saliva stains and review the use of the mini crime-scope. 
14. The Ottawa dark room should be relocated away from the known samples room.
15. A research exercise should be undertaken to optimise the amount of material that is placed in the sample tubes.
16. The AU team structure is changed in line with the amended workflow process.
17. The AU team take responsibility for the transformation of a prepared sample to a certified DNA profile result.
18. FS&IS BSD should ensure an appropriate proportion of staff are trained across both analytical processing lines.
19. FS&IS should consider the feasibility of using only electronic data management processes.
20. FS&IS BSD must optimise the automated lysis and extraction protocols. This is to include a reduced lysis step and optimisation of extraction preparation and pipetting.
21. Optimise the PCR parameters with a view to eliminating the overnight extension phase.
22. Review the plate sealing and storage system.
23. FS&IS should undertake a complete review of sample retention, return and destruction policy, in line with internal and client requirements.
24. FS&IS BSD should review their reprocessing procedures.
25. AU should review all their anti-contamination procedures.
26. FS&IS BSD should consider introducing an automated sample batching system which includes the application of more stringent and appropriate rules for sample positioning within the plate.
27. The analysis unit must make more effective use of capacity by optimising available timing slots.
28. FS&IS BSD should implement use of robotic arms on Tecan liquid handling platforms.
29. FS&IS BSD should assess the benefits of holding maintenance contracts with vendors.
30. Reporting Scientists have the role of ‘case manager’. 
31. Individuals requesting large amounts of rework should undertake additional training in principles of the Automated Process.
32. Reporting Scientists report at activity level where possible.
33. A dedicated, centrally-located team is created to manage the CODIS hit process.
34. FS&IS should review the requirements of local databanks
35. FS&IS should consider the creation of a Learning and Education Unit responsible for determining learning needs, creating and delivering training programmes and evaluating  the value of the learning experience.
36. Training leads are appointed for each operational unit.
37. All training courses should be well structured with clear measurable aims and modular in construction.
38. Consolidate training resources.
39. All projects should be focussed on systematic or methodical improvements to operational processes to meet targets.
40. FS&IS should consider the suspension of all pay barrier projects in order to address the current backlog situation.
41. When implementing projects, BSD should appoint an operational unit manager as a change agent to manage the integration and implementation of new techniques to ensure the full benefits are realised.
42. Classification of contamination should be reviewed
43. It is essential that known and unknown samples types are processed on separate batches.
44. Improve communications for all quality management procedures.
45. FSS strongly recommend, that the following KPI’s are measured weekly within each unit and reported up the management structure on a monthly basis.
46. Unit managers must be responsible for their units’ contribution to the process. This involves monitoring agreed KPI’s by implementing appropriate processes.
47. FS&IS may consider implementing a performance management process based on progress towards KPI targets. This process must be linked to appreciable benefits.
48. FS&IS must review their processing data collection methods.
49. FS&IS should undertake a 6 month consolidation period to understand their current performance levels across the business according to the revised performance measures recommended above.
50. FS&IS should more clearly define what is regarded as a successful profile.
51. FS&IS need to implement a communications policy covering forensic case strategy discussions with clients
52. FS&IS spend time, perhaps via pay barrier work, to understand its cost.
53. A troubleshooting function should be established within the operational environment.
54. FS&IS should instigate pilot initiatives with individual forces to more closely align the services offered to differing force priorities, and to track the end-to-end process timings
55. To maximise the understanding of the client requirements and client/BSD communication the FSS recommends the implementation of Client Relationship Officers
56. FS&IS should consider processing suspect and victim reference samples via the National DNA Databank line
57. FS&IS may consider retaining additional capacity, after backlog elimination.
58. FS&IS may investigate the possibility of reducing the total number of FS&IS staff once the backlog situation has been addressed.
59. FS&IS should consider creating specialist processing units such as dedicating the Edmonton facility as a Volume Analysis Unit.
60. FS&IS should challenge parliamentary obligations to perform ‘pay barrier’ projects
61. FS&IS should introduce a charging structure for all police clients. This should reflect the submissions profile for each force.
62. FS&IS should consider introducing phased reporting methodology

Acronym

French Acronym	French Name	English Acronym	English Name
AA	Analyste Agent danalyse	AO	AnalystAnalytical Officer
ADN		DNA
AE	Agent des enquêtes	IO	Investigative Officer
Allons de l'avant		Moving Forward
AP processus		AP Stream
ARC	Agent des relations avec les clients	CRO	Client Relationship Officer
ASLC	Agent de liaison du lieu de crime	CSLO	Crime Scene Liaison Officer
BNDG	Banque nationale de données génétiques	NDDB	National DNA Data Bank
BVG	Bureau de la vérificatrice générale	OAG	Office of the Auditor General
CAI	Évaluation et interprétation des cas	CAI	Case Assessment and interpretation
CE	Chef d’équipe	TL	Team Leader
CISCP	Centre d'information des services canadiens de police	CPSIC	Canadian Police Services Information Centre
CODIS		CODIS
CODIS	Combined DNA Index System	CODIS	Combined DNA Index System
CR	coordonnateur des recherches	SC	Search Co-ordinator
D	Souhaitable	D	Desirable
DE	Délais d'exécution	TAT
Demandes de service		Service Requests
DSB	Direction des services de Biologie	BSD	Biology Services Directorate
E	Essentiel	E	Essential
EC	Électrophorèse par capillaire	CE	Capillary Electrophoresis
EXTRANT		OUTPUT
FC	Fichier de criminalistique	CSI	Crime Scene Index
FCO	Fichier des comdamnés	COI	Crime Officer Index
FP sur les ressources humaines		Public Service Human Resources
FSS	Forensic Science Services	FSS
GA	Groupe des analyses	AU	Analytical Unit
GCEP	Groupe de la collecte des éléments de preuve	ERU	Evidence Recovery Unit
GR	Groupe chargé des rapports	RU	Reporting Unit
GRC	Gendarmerie royale du Canada	RCMP	Royal Canadian Mounted Police
GRDC	Groupe de réception des cas	CRU	Case Receipt Unit
Groupe des crimes de masse Edmonton		Edmonton Volume Crime Unit
IG	Information de gestion	MI	Management information
Inhibiteurs PCR		PCR inhibitors
IPO	Instructions permanentes d’opération	SOP	Standard Operating Procedure
IRC	Indicateurs de rendement clé	KPI	Key Performance Indicators
Lots (taille des lots du PA)		Batch	AP Batch size
Modèle PRÉVU		“TO BE” MODEL
Modèle TEL QUEL		“AS IS” MODEL
Module de mise en lot		Batch Module
PA (taille des lots du PA)	Processus automatisé	AP Batch size	Automated Process
PEO	Processus d’extraction Organique	OES	Organic Extraction Stream
PRÉVU		“TO BE”
Réglementation sur la SST du Gouvernement du Canada		Workplace H&S Regulations of the Government of Canada
SANE	Infirmière chargé d’examiner les victimes d’agression sexuelle	SANE	Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners
SCJ		CJS
SGIL	LIMS (it's a registered trademark)	LIMS	Laboratory Information Management System
SIIJ	Service intégré de l'identité judiciaire	IFIS	Integrated Forensic Identification Services
SJN-V (Services judiciaires nationaux - Vancouver) SLJ-V	Site du Labo de Vancouver	NFS-V (National Forensic Services) FLS -V	Vancouver lab
SJP	Système de justice pénale	CJS	Criminal Justice System
SJN (Services judiciaires nationaux) SLJ	Services du laboratoire judiciaire	NFS (National Forensic Services) FLS	Forensic Laboratory Services
SJN-O SLJ-O	Site du Labo d’Ottawa	NFS-O FLS-O	Ottawa lab
SP	Service de police	PS	Police Services
SPDO		PROOF
SR	Scientifique chargé des rapports I never agreed with that translation and I prefer to use: Spécialiste.	RS	Reporting Scientist
SSJ&I	Les Services des sciences judiciaires et de l'identité	FS&IS	Forensic Science and Identification Services
SWGDAM		SWGDAM	Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods
Tableau de bord prospective		BSC	Balanced Scorecard
TEL QUEL		“AS IS”
TG	Technicien général	GDT	General Duty Technician
WIZZAPP		WIZZAPP	Specialized data retrieval software

 

1. Moving Forward (Draft 8) RCMP 2008
2. Cook et al (1998) Science and Justice 38 151-156,  A model for case assessment and interpretation
3. Evett et al (2000) Science and Justice 40 233-239, The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements
4. ibid
5. Cook et al (1998) Science and Justice 38 231-239,  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework
6. www.work-structuring.com
7. Moving Forward.pdf
8. Biology Systems Review Final Plan v1.0