Implementing failure demand reduction as part of a demand management strategy

Figures & data

Table 1. Categorization of police calls for service (Bailey & Watson, 2012).

High level demand type	Proportion
I want to report something	24%
Please turn up/stop something from happening	21%
Please give me some advice/information	14%
Internal operational requests	13%
Can I have an update?	13%
External requests for support	12%
Abandoned/sales calls	3%

Table 2. Types of unwanted demand (Randle & Kippin, 2014).

Type of demand	Explanation
Failure	Demand caused by errors or poor processes
Avoidable	Demand arising from behaviours that can be changed
Excess	Demand created by providing more than is needed
Preventable	Demand arising from causes that could be removed earlier
Co-dependent	Demand that is unintentionally reinforced by dependence

Figure 1. Example training incident.

Figure 2. The frequency of the value of services needed from the sample incidents.

Figure 3. Suggested revised approach to call handling to reduce failure demand.

Figure 4. The six responses to demand based around contact and response time.

Figure 5. Incident demand and resolution method.

Figure 6. Demand changes 2017–2018.

Note: We accept that some calls would have been resolved with first contact in 2017, but these were not recorded in this way prior to 2018.

Bailey, N., & Watson, S. (2012). No soft option: changing thinking across an entire police force. In C. Pell (Ed.), Delivering public services that work (pp. 47–74). Triarchy Press.

 Google Scholar

Randle, A., & Kippin, H. (2014). Managing demand: Building future public services. RSA.

 Google Scholar