While delivering training to police officers I am often asked why they have to spend so much time transcribing interviews. It gets tiring because I don't have answers. These officers want to be out on the streets helping people.
Back in olden times I remember typing police reports with sheets of carbon paper and an ever-present bottle of Tipex! Technology changed that for us, and we saved time and money with word processors. Back then, we whined about having to learn these new devices and it took a bit of time to realise the benefits. However, now, such technology is a constant part of our lives, so I am struggling to understand why we are not embracing more of it.
I understand that the Courts expect transcriptions of interviews and to satisfy justice this seems reasonable.
I don’t understand why a police officer is doing their own transcription. Officers cost about a US dollar a minute. One hour of spoken word takes four hours to transcribe.
I understand why we might want a person to do the transcription, but then should we not hire a trained transcriber. They are likely to be much cheaper.
I understand why outsourcing transcription might seem a viable option, given the lack of any long-term financial commitment, but I also understand concerns about sending sensitive police material outside the agency.
I understand that Police Chiefs are in a never-ending battle to do more with less resources, but I really struggle to understand their reluctance to use new software solutions that save resources.
I understand fears that the quality of software transcription may not be acceptable but testing it will provide the answers. In reality, it is likely to be as good as that of many officers.
When the potential cost savings with using transcription software are so significant, maybe some of the Chiefs out there can help me understand, their hesitancy around this technology.
