The Four Most Common Findings of an NPSG Business Process Review

Do You Really Need New Public Safety Software or a Business Process Review?

By Sarah Perry, Director of Marketing, NPSG

“Why aren’t we getting the reporting we need? Why is our software harder to use than it should be? Why are we still waiting on functionality we were promised years ago?”

When an agency starts asking these questions about their Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (LERMS & FRMS), Mobile Data System (MDS) and Jail Management System (JMS), the assumption is often that they need new public safety software. Sometimes that’s true. But in many cases, there’s a less costly solution.

Over time, staff turnover, changing operational needs, and vendor support challenges can create significant gaps between what an agency’s public safety software is capable of and how it is actually being used. As institutional knowledge fades, agencies often begin using less of their software while relying on workarounds and manual processes to get the job done. The systems that should be supporting officer, first responder and public safety end up inefficient and frustrating.

This is when agencies turn to National Public Safety Group (NPSG) for a Business Process Review (BPR).

What is an NPSG Business Process Review?

An NPSG Business Process Review is a comprehensive assessment of how well an agency is using its public safety software, including CAD, LERMS, FRMS, Mobile and JMS solutions. The review evaluates system utilization, training, vendor support, functionality, infrastructure, and contractual deliverables to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement.

The goal is to provide agencies with the data and documentation needed to maximize their existing investment, improve system use, reduce unnecessary costs, and make informed technology decisions.

While every agency is different, there are four BPR findings we see most often:

Finding #1: Training and Knowledge Gaps

One of the most common discoveries during a BPR is that the software isn’t always the problem.

When a new system is implemented, agencies typically establish a build team that becomes highly knowledgeable about the software. Over the years, as those employees retire, promote, transfer, or leave the agency, the expertise they developed leaves with them.

Five years after implementation, many agencies find themselves relying on on-the-job training and institutional memory rather than structured education. As a result, users only understand a fraction of the functionality available to them.

The Fix: A BPR identifies specific training deficiencies and documents where additional education is needed. More importantly, it provides agency leadership with objective evidence to justify ongoing training investments and create a sustainable knowledge transfer strategy.

Finding #2: Missing Functionality

Here, the culprit is the software. The software simply doesn’t deliver everything the agency was promised or the agency has outgrown their current system.

In some cases, critical interfaces, integrations, or conversions were never completed. In others, functionality demonstrated during the procurement process was placed “on the roadmap” but never delivered.

Sometimes the agency or the complexities they face in serving and protecting their community have grown significantly since implementation and the software that once met most needs feels barely usable.

The result is a system that falls short of expectations and forces users to create inefficient workarounds.

The Fix: A BPR evaluates current functionality against operational needs and contractual obligations. The review identifies gaps, documents deficiencies, and helps agencies determine whether vendor accountability, additional development, or future procurement efforts are necessary.

In many cases, agencies discover they are not receiving everything they paid for.

Finding #3: Infrastructure and Technology Risks

Sometimes the software is performing exactly as designed but the environment supporting it is not.

Outdated hardware, aging infrastructure, licensing inefficiencies, firmware deficiencies, unsupported equipment, and cloud readiness challenges can all impact system performance and reliability. Many agencies are also paying for licenses or third-party solutions that duplicate functionality they already own.

These issues often remain hidden until they create operational problems.

The Fix: An NPSG BPR includes assessments of infrastructure, licensing, and technology readiness to identify risks before they become major issues. This results in a clear picture of the agency’s current environment, opportunities to reduce unnecessary spending, and a roadmap for future technology investments based on best practices, rather than assumptions.

Finding #4: Vendor Support Challenges

Even when software has the features an agency needs, poor vendor support can make that functionality difficult to use effectively.

Agencies frequently report long-standing support tickets, delayed upgrades, unresolved defects, and constant struggles to obtain assistance. Important personnel can become consumed with managing vendor issues rather than focusing on their primary responsibilities.

For agencies that rely on this software every minute of every day, this can have significant impacts to public safety.

The Fix: A BPR evaluates the quality of vendor support and documents the impact it is having on agency operations. This helps leadership understand whether the issues are support-related, training-related, or a larger system deficiency. This leaves the agency with a factual foundation for improving vendor accountability or, when necessary, building a business case for replacing the software.

What a Business Process Review Really Delivers

Most agencies aren’t getting the full value from their public safety software. The challenge is that the root causes are rarely obvious. Additionally, agency personnel have a very important day job and evaluating software isn’t it.

That’s where NPSG can help. We remove the burden from the agency and perform the analysis, create the documentation, and do the objective assessment work needed to uncover root causes, identify opportunities and provide leadership with the information to make informed technology decisions.

In the end, the agency saves time and has a roadmap for improvement – whether that means better training, stronger vendor accountability, infrastructure upgrades, or a future system replacement