NISTIR 8216

Voices of First Responders – Identifying 

Public Safety Communication Problems

Findings from User-Centered Interviews

Phase 1, Volume 1

Yee-Yin Choong

Shaneé Dawkins

Susanne Furman

Kristen K. Greene

Sandra Spickard Prettyman

Mary F. Theofanos

Authors are listed in alphabetical order

This publication is available free of charge from:

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216
NISTIR 8216

Voices of First Responders – Identifying 

Public Safety Communication Problems

Findings from User-Centered Interviews

Phase 1, Volume 1

Yee-Yin Choong

Shaneé Dawkins

Susanne Furman

Kristen K. Greene

Information Access Division

Information Technology Laboratory

Mary F. Theofanos

Office of Data and Informatics

Material Measurement Laboratory

Sandra Spickard Prettyman

Culture Catalyst, LLC

This publication is available free of charge from:

https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

July 2018

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Walter Copan, NIST Director and Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology 
i

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Abstract

The public safety community is in the process of transitioning from the use of land mobile 

radios (LMR) to a technology ecosystem including a variety of broadband data sharing 

platforms. Successful deployment and adoption of new communication technology relies on 

efficient and effective user interfaces based on a clear understanding of first responder needs, 

requirements and contexts of use. This project employs a two-phased data collection approach 

for an in-depth look at the population of first responders, along with their work environment, 

their tasks, and their communication needs. This report documents the data collection of Phase 

1 and the resulting data analysis. Phase 1, the qualitative component, focuses on interviews 

with approximately 200 first responders (law enforcement, fire fighters, emergency medical 

services, communications/dispatch) across the country. The results include user needs and 

requirements expressed by first responders. These needs and requirements have been organized 

into five categories of technology opportunities. Further analysis identified six user-centered 

design guidelines for technology development. Finally, the importance the role of trust plays 

in first responders’ adoption and use of communication technology is presented.

Key words

First responders; Public safety communications research; Qualitative research; Usability; 

User-centered design; User needs and requirements.

Audience

The primary audience of this report is designers, developers, vendors, and researchers of public 

safety communications technology.

Disclaimer

Any mention of commercial products or reference to commercial organizations is for 

information only; it does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products mentioned are necessarily 

the best available for the purpose.
ii

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Executive Summary

Background 

The public safety community is in the process of transitioning from the use of land mobile 

radios (LMR) to a technology ecosystem including a variety of broadband data sharing 

platforms. While these new communication technologies offer potentially significant benefits 

for mission delivery, their design and implementation may not always reflect first responder 

needs, requirements, and contexts of use. Successful deployment and adoption of new 

communication technology relies on efficient and effective user interfaces based on a clear 

understanding of first responder needs, requirements and contexts of use.

The goal of the Usability and User Interface project is to understand the wide range of first 

responders, tasks and contexts of first responder work. It also examines their perceptions about 

their work, and the roles that communication and technology play. Part of this goal is to engage 

directly with first responders to understand current user experience and what they need to 

communicate efficiently and effectively and with user satisfaction. Engaging first responders 

in this work captures their voices so that they become audible to a broader community. 

Ultimately, the goal is to develop usability requirements for new and evolving public safety 

communication technologies that directly address first responder needs in the field.

Methodology

The project employs a two-phased data collection approach for an in-depth look at the 

population of first responders, along with their work environment, their tasks, and their 

communication needs. Phase 1, the qualitative component, focuses on interviews with 

approximately 200 first responders (law enforcement, fire fighters, emergency medical 

services, communications/dispatch) across the country. Phase 2 will utilize a quantitative 

instrument (large-scale national survey of first responders) to collect data to confirm and 

expand on the needs and problems related to communication and technology identified in the 

qualitative data. The phases complement each other providing a holistic view of first 

responders, their work, beliefs, and needs related to communication technology.

Results 

This report documents the data collection of Phase 1 and the first iteration of data analysis1

. It 

reports on how first responders’ work influences:

• their communication and technology needs, 

• their beliefs and perceptions about their current technology, 

• what they would like technology to do, and 

• why they do and do not use technology.

Over 3 400 user needs and requirements expressed by first responders were collected. This 

report presents exemplars of the technology opportunities representing first responders’ 

specific needs and requirements to solve the major problems they face in performing their 

work. Five cross-disciplinary opportunities emerged from the needs and requirements for the 

 1 Subsequent iterations of data analysis will be reported in later volume(s).
iii

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) research and development (R&D)

community. 

• Interoperability – The ability of a system or a product to exchange and make use of 

information with other systems or products without special effort on the part of the 

users—data integration and sharing from radios to radios, systems to systems, devices 

to devices, and departments to departments.

• Reliability and connectivity – 100 % connectivity for radio, cellular, and wireless 

networks despite geography and topography—urban canyons, subways, basements, or 

other dead zones.

• Accountability and location – Development of technology that provides for 

accountability and location tracking of the crew, units, 911 callers, and building 

occupants.

• Maintenance, technical support and training – Minimization of the burden and costs 

of the associated maintenance, technical support and training of technology imposed 

on users and departments.

• Organizational policies and administration – Facilitation and promotion of

technology adoption by first responders through policies, procedures, and 

administration to minimize barriers and hindrances to use while supporting first 

responders’ primary tasks.

• In addition to the opportunities, six user-centered design guidelines were identified 

from the data that first responders believe are requirements for developers when 

addressing opportunities. 

• Improve current technology – improve functionality of what first responders

currently have, make them more affordable, and more reliable, for example, better 

radios – coverage, durability, clarity; better microphones and cords. It is not necessarily 

new technology that first responders want, but the improvement of current technology 

that they believe is most important.

• Reduce unintended consequences – develop technology that does not interfere with 

first responders’ attention to their primary tasks–which can cause distraction, loss of 

situational awareness, cognitive overload, and over-reliance on technology.

• Recognize ‘one size does not fit all’ – while there are similarities across the first 

responder disciplines and standardization is important for consistency, compatibility 

and quality, technology must accommodate the wide variety of public safety needs–

across disciplines, personnel, departments, districts, contexts of use. All are different, 

requiring easy adaptability and configurability.

• Minimize ‘technology for technology’s sake’ – develop technology with and for first 

responders driven by their user characteristics, needs, requirements, and contexts of 

use.

• Lower product/service costs – develop technology at price points that departments

can afford, lowering costs for technology. For example, consider the ‘One Laptop per 

Child’ [28] approach where various entities collaborated to make and widely distribute 

rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected technology in areas that could not otherwise 

afford such devices. The goal was not only to design the tool, but to design it at a pricepoint that made it feasible and scalable for widespread distribution. 
iv

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

• Require usable technology – know thy user and develop ‘Fisher-Price’

solutions – simple, easy to use, light, fast, and not disruptive. Technology 

should make it easy for the user to do the right thing, hard to do the wrong thing, 

and easy to recover when the wrong thing happens.

Finally, the role of trust was identified as a factor in successful public safety communications 

technology. In fact, trust emerged as a major theme even though we did not ask about trust. 

The relationship of trust to many of the problems identified by the first responder participants 

was prevalent in the data. First responders need to trust the related technology, people, and 

organizational policies, for new tools and technology to be adopted and accepted.

Contributions

The primary audience of this report is designers, developers, vendors, and researchers of public 

safety communications technology. This research effort documents first responders’ beliefs, 

perceptions and needs of communication and technology, in their own words, and the 

recognition of trust as a significant factor in successful public safety communications 

technology adoption. Resources available in this report include a rigorous and systematic 

methodological approach, a repository of data, identified user needs and requirements, and 

principles for development. 
v

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................II

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................................V

LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................................................VI

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................................VI

GLOSSARY.....................................................................................................................................................VII

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

THE RESEARCH TEAM.............................................................................................................................3

METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 3

3.1. QUALITATIVE VERSUS QUANTITATIVE METHODS.............................................................................................5

3.2. PHASE 1: THE QUALITATIVE COMPONENT.....................................................................................................6

3.2.1. Participants.....................................................................................................................................7

3.2.2. Data Collection Instruments.........................................................................................................10

3.2.3. Procedure......................................................................................................................................12

3.3. DATA COLLECTION CHALLENGES................................................................................................................12

3.3.1. Recruitment and Access................................................................................................................13

3.3.2. Time Constraints...........................................................................................................................14

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 15

4.1. CODING................................................................................................................................................15

4.2. ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................................17

4.3. QUALITATIVE METHOD VALIDITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS..............................................................................18

4.4. DOCUMENTING RESULTS..........................................................................................................................20

RESULTS............................................................................................................................................... 20

5.1. KNOW THY USER: CHARACTERISTICS OF FIRST RESPONDERS ...........................................................................21

5.1.1. Similarities in First Responders.....................................................................................................22

5.1.2. Differences in First Responders.....................................................................................................25

5.2. USER CHARACTERISTIC: TRUST ..................................................................................................................29

5.3. TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION...........................................................................30

5.3.1. The Paradox of New Technology ..................................................................................................31

5.3.2. Interoperability .............................................................................................................................34

5.3.3. Unintended Consequences............................................................................................................35

5.3.4. Over-reliance on Technology ........................................................................................................37

5.3.5. The Importance of Radios.............................................................................................................39

5.3.6. Usability ........................................................................................................................................41

5.4. SOCIAL ASPECTS FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.......................................................................................42

5.4.1. The Context of Communication ....................................................................................................43

5.4.2. The Public Context ........................................................................................................................44

5.5. FRICTION BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND THE ORGANIZATION ...........................................................................48

5.5.1. Conflict Between Technology and Limited Budgets......................................................................48

5.5.2. New Technology Requires New Organizational Policies...............................................................50

5.5.3. New Technology Includes New Responsibilities............................................................................52

SUMMARY OF RESULTS........................................................................................................................ 53

6.1. TECHNOLOGY NEEDS...............................................................................................................................53
vi

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

6.2. TECHNOLOGY GUIDANCE .........................................................................................................................56

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 57

7.1. CONTRIBUTIONS.....................................................................................................................................58

7.2. FUTURE WORK ......................................................................................................................................58

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 59

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 59

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 62

APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................. 64

APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS CODES................................................................................................ 65

APPENDIX D: USER-IDENTIFIED TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES AND NEEDS................................................. 68

List of Tables

Table 1. Experience with Technology.................................................................................... 11

Table 2. Number of Participants Interviewed in FY’17......................................................... 13

Table 3. Interview Length and Transcript Number................................................................ 13

Table 4. Example Codes from Codebook .............................................................................. 16

Table 5. Extraction Counts by Code and Discipline .............................................................. 17

Table 6. Quantitative Versus Qualitative Definitions............................................................ 18

Table 7. User Identified Needs, Problems and Requirements................................................ 54

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Overall Research Design. .............................................................................................. 4

Fig. 2. Phase 1 of the Usability and User Interface Project...................................................... 7

Fig. 3. Geographic Regions for Phase 1 Interviews. ................................................................ 9

Fig. 4. Demographic Data (n=122)......................................................................................... 10
vii

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Glossary

CAD Computer-aided Dispatch

COMMS Communications

CT Scan Computerized Tomography Scan

DOL Department of Labor

EKG Electrocardiograms

EMS Emergency Medical Services

ER Emergency Room

FB Facebook

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FF Firefighters

FN Field Notes

GPM Gallons per Minute

GPS Global Positioning System

HSPO Human Subject Protection Office

HUD Heads Up Display

IT Information Technology

LE Law Enforcement

LTE Long-Term Evolution

MCI Mass Casualty Incident

MDC Mobile data computer

MDT Mobile data terminal

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PCR Patient Contact Report

PIO Public Information Officer

POC Point of Contacts

PR Public Relation

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PS Public Safety

PSCR Public Safety Communications Research

RMS Record management system

R&D Research and Development

SCBA Self-contained Breathing Apparatus

SDS Safety Data Sheet

SME Subject Matter Expert

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

T-Card Incident Command System Card: Resource Status Card (T-Card) (ICS 219s)

TAC Tactical Channel

TIC Thermal Imaging Camera
1

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Introduction

The United States Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012 created the First 

Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to develop a high-speed backbone, Nationwide 

Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN), for public safety to take advantage of new

technological innovations and enhance their communications and information sharing [1]. The 

establishment of the NPSBN with the ability to run Long-Term Evolution (LTE) solutions has 

provided a unique opportunity to advance public safety communications. However, if 

advanced public safety communications technology is to be successful, first responders2 must 

be able to achieve their goals and objectives with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in 

their specified contexts of use. Understanding a context of use includes understanding the 

users and their tasks, equipment (hardware, software and materials), and the physical and social 

environments in which they operate. In order for first responders to achieve their goals and 

objectives and support good decisions, it is critical that they receive the right information at 

the right time, delivered in the right way. Thus, understanding their contexts of use and what 

first responders believe about communication technology is imperative when developing new 

technology or improving current technology. 

The Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) community has identified human factors 

and user interfaces as important components for successful deployment and adoption of new

communication technology. The challenge for communications technology developers and 

designers is truly understanding first responder needs, requirements, and their contexts of use. 

This is no easy task given the variability within the first responder population, however it is 

crucial to understand the different public safety user groups and their beliefs, perceptions, and 

experiences related to their roles and responsibilities and to communication. A clear 

understanding of how these different public safety user groups are similar and/or different, and 

what these similarities and/or differences mean in terms of their communication needs is 

necessary. 

This Usability and User Interface project provides an in-depth look at the population of first 

responders, along with their work environment, their tasks, and their communication needs.

The first phase, Phase 1, of the project is a qualitative component, focusing on interviews with 

approximately 200 first responders. The second phase, Phase 2, will utilize the results of the 

qualitative interviews to inform a large-scale quantitative survey to be distributed nationally to 

first responders. The two phases of the project complement each other in order to provide a 

holistic view of first responders and their work, including their beliefs and needs related to 

communication technology. 

Successful data collection relies on rigorous research methods and practices, which are detailed 

in the Methods section of this document. Three initial research questions informed the Phase 

1 study: 

1. How do public safety personnel describe the context of their work, including their roles 

and responsibilities as well as process and flow?

 2 For the purposes of this report, the use of first responders refers to personnel who are actively involved in day 

to day incident response and operations or in supporting roles.
2

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

2. How do public safety personnel describe their communication and technology needs 

related to work?

3. What do public safety personnel believe is working or not working in their current 

operational environment related to communication and technology?

These questions served as guides for the development of data collection tools, analysis of the 

data, and the presentation of results. The goal is to ensure that the input from first responders 

is collected and incorporated as the PSCR community moves forward in developing 

technology to help first responders communicate more efficiently, effectively and with 

minimal frustration.

The goal of this project is to understand the behavioral, procedural, and technical pieces that 

first responders believe are necessary to facilitate communication and best address their 

technology needs. This information is meant to provide a repository of relevant data related to 

first responders and define the problem space with respect to communication technology to 

allow designers, developers, and researchers to focus on translating and incorporating the user

experience into new and existing technology for first responders. The ultimate goal is to enable 

the public safety community to better achieve their primary goals of protecting lives and 

property.

There are approximately 4 million first responders in the public safety community in the United 

States (U.S.) [2][3], comprised of firefighters (FF), emergency medical services (EMS), law 

enforcement (LE), and communications (COMMS) personnel, including 911 call centers

workers, to name a few. These various types of first responders have different roles and 

functions, respond to different types of situations, operate on many different levels, and have 

varied communication needs. The public safety community also differs organizationally, 

jurisdictionally, and geographically. The diverse makeup of the public safety community

translates into different first responder contexts of use and communication needs. 

The voices of first responders have often not been taken into consideration, especially when 

technology is developed for them and not with them. Firefighters repeatedly mentioned that 

the cord that connects the radio (a life safety device for firefighters) to the remote speaker 

microphone melts, rendering the radio useless and jeopardizing firefighters’ safety. 

Technology should not be developed in a vacuum. Before designing and developing 

technology first responder input must be collected — their voices should drive what technology 

is developed. Technology should be designed and developed with and for them. First 

responders believe they are there to serve and protect their communities, and that they are 

problem solvers. First responders see themselves as jacks of all trades who juggle many roles.

This ability to be problem solvers, and to do many things for many people, often involves being 

able to create workarounds when things, like technology, do not work as planned.

Even with the many responsibilities they have, and the potential for danger that is always there, 

first responders love their jobs. When asked to describe their jobs, police officers used

adjectives such as fun, interesting, dynamic, challenging, super rewarding, crazy and 

humbling. As a group they love going to work and many believe it is their dream job. 

First responders hold a deep commitment to their work and to the communities they serve. The 

passion and dedication seen during the recent California forest fires in Santa Rosa and wine 
3

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

country are evidence of this commitment. First responders are dedicated to performing and 

completing their primary tasks, even to the point of exhaustion, and even when it comes at 

great personal risk. This dedication is evident in their words and how they describe their work 

experiences. Listening to them provides an understanding of what they do and how it may or 

may not be facilitated by the technology at hand.

The interviewed first responders believe that technology should help them accomplish their 

primary tasks, and if it does not, then they do not believe it is necessary and they do not want 

it. As a result, they become frustrated when technology has problems or limitations that 

interfere with their primary tasks. While they view communication as important, they do not 

believe it is their primary task—helping others is. In general, they also believe there is little 

need for communication if everyone knows what to do and is doing their job well. Many spoke 

about how during an incident they might not have to say a word to each other. They can look 

right in their colleague’s eyes, and know what they need to do. While first responders see 

technology as useful, rarely do they see it as the most important factor in their mission. 

This report provides information and resources about the contexts of first responders’ work 

and how these contexts influence their communication and technology needs, as well as their 

beliefs and perceptions about their current technology, what they would like technology to do, 

and why they do and do not use technology. The report identifies approximately 3 400 user 

needs and requirements expressed by first responders. Specific categories of technology 

opportunities are identified. Exemplars of the technology opportunities representing first 

responders’ specific needs and requirements to solve the problems they face in performing 

their work are presented. A set of conceptual governing principles focusing on first responders 

as guidance and foundation for any technology development are described. Finally, trust has 

been identified as a factor in successful public safety communications technology adoption.

The Research Team

The research team for the Usability and User Interface project is multidisciplinary, with two

computer scientists, three psychologists with specializations in human factors, and a 

sociologist who is a qualitative methodologist. Each team member brings unique disciplinary 

and methodological perspectives to the project. This diversity is particularly valuable when 

using a multiple methods approach. The multidisciplinary nature of the team also strengthens 

research quality “in terms of enabling sounder methodological design, increasing rigor, and 

encouraging richer conceptual analysis and interpretation” [4].

Methods

The research design for the project began by developing research questions (as stated in the 

Introduction section) that would guide the work during the project. This important formative 

stage of the research serves as a foundation and provides a focus for data collection and data 

analysis.
4

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org ilable free of charge from: This publication is ava

Fig. 1. Overall Research Design.
5

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

The study can be described as a sequential, exploratory multi-method design. Data from both 

phases will be integrated for analysis to provide for a more holistic understanding of first 

responders and their communication. The overall research design for the project is depicted in 

Fig. 1 above. 

3.1. Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods

Quantitative and qualitative research approaches rely on different paradigms to guide them. 

They utilize different methods of data collection and analysis, and they represent data 

differently—thus their purposes, their processes, and their products are different. There is 

often a misinformed image that quantitative research is “objective” while qualitative research 

is “subjective,” which represents an oversimplification and misunderstanding of the strengths 

and weaknesses of each approach. Instead, each approach has different processes for ensuring 

rigor and for providing validity and reliability in the research.

Quantitative research is generally guided by a positivist paradigm that sees the world as 

comprised of facts that are observable and measurable. It assumes a fixed and measurable 

reality. In this paradigm, it is important to delimit phenomena into measurable and/or similar 

categories that can be applied to other situations or generalized to a larger population. It is 

explanatory in nature and relies on the quantification of data which allows for the 

generalization of results from a sample to an entire population of interest. Research questions 

in this approach are narrow and specific, and based on hypotheses that guide the research. 

Quantitative methods focus on collecting measurable, numeric data that works to place the 

diverse perspectives and experiences of people into a limited number of predetermined 

response categories. Data are analyzed through numerical comparisons and statistical 

inferences. Validity is the extent to which an instrument accurately measured what it is 

supposed to measure. Reliability in quantitative work demonstrates that similar results would 

be obtained if the research was repeated in the same context, utilizing the same methods, and 

with the same participants. There are a number of statistical tests and measures to assess 

validity and reliability in quantitative studies, which lends to their credibility as objective 

methods. On the other hand, most qualitative research aligns with an interpretivist paradigm 

that relies heavily on naturalistic methods in order to describe and understand the human 

condition—in all its complexity and with all its contradictions, from the participants’ 

perspectives. It assumes a reality that is dynamic and negotiated. Qualitative research seeks 

to describe or explore a group or phenomenon in a comprehensive way. It is often exploratory 

or investigative and may or may not utilize hypotheses to guide it. Research questions are 

broad and focused on including voices and perspectives of participants. Data are collected by 

engaging directly with participants and analyzed by systematically identifying key ideas and 

concepts that occur across the data set, and then exploring where there are relationships 

amongst these. Although some erroneously view qualitative research as anecdotal, when a 

rigorous research design is in place, qualitative research can provide a deeper understanding 

about the group or phenomenon under study and may reveal information that is impossible to 

obtain through a survey or more mechanistic methods. With this type of research, it is not 

appropriate to generalize to the population at large, however readers are able to make decisions 

about a study’s generalizability to their own situations based on how well the researchers 
6

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

describe process and outcomes of the research. Instead of validity, most qualitative researchers 

choose to discuss the “trustworthiness” of their work, focusing on methods of triangulation:

tactics to insure honest responses from participants (such as informing them they can 

voluntarily withdraw or refuse to answer a question at any time); iterative questioning (to 

insure consistent data from participants); frequent debriefing sessions amongst researchers (to 

explore gaps in the process and/or product and insure exploration of varied and alternative 

ideas); and experienced investigators who are knowledgeable about the content and the 

population. Reliability in qualitative research is often referred to as dependability, which is 

provided by insuring transparency in the research process and providing detail about all 

research processes. This creates a model of the research that others can utilize as a template

to conduct a similar study. 

Just as the purpose and processes are different for quantitative and qualitative research studies, 

the products or results are different as well. Quantitative results are presented generally as 

statistical reports with correlations, comparisons of means, and calculations of statistical 

significance. Qualitative results include descriptions of contexts and participants, along with 

extensive quotes from the data. These quotes are meant to serve as exemplars of key concepts, 

ideas, and themes identified in the analysis rather than as just singular examples of data.

3.2. Phase 1: The Qualitative Component

Qualitative research is iterative in nature and focuses on the importance of participants’ voices 

and perspectives throughout the research process. The research process consistently returns to 

the research questions to inform future elements of the process such as data collection and data 

analysis. Data collection and data analysis were conducted in tandem and occurred iteratively, 

each informing future iterations. As will be discussed in more detail in the section on Sampling

Strategy, this project is cross-sectional including input from participants from all public safety 

disciplines, from a variety of ranks and levels, and from a variety of geographical areas to name 

just a few. It is also constructivist in that the focus is on how first responders construct and 

conceptualize their worlds—based on their individual understandings as well as based on 

shared meanings and social constructions. A case study approach was used, which Yin [5]

argues is appropriate when exploring “how” questions where contextual conditions are relevant 

to the phenomenon under study, and where the behavior of those involved in the study is only 

observed. For this project, the phenomenon of study is experiences of first responder 

communication and technology, which cannot be understood outside of the first responder 

context. The research process for Phase 1 is depicted in Fig. 2 below.
7

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Fig. 2. Phase 1 of the Usability and User Interface Project.

A phased approach to data collection was used with approximately 66 % (total of 133) of the 

interviews conducted in fiscal year (FY) 2017 and the remaining interviews to be conducted 

in FY 2018. The initial focus was on gathering data in urban and suburban areas from FF, EMS, 

and LE. In FY 2018, data collection is expanding to include rural areas as well as interviewing

tribal and COMMS personnel. An in-depth explanation of the sampling strategy is presented 

later in this section.

3.2.1. Participants

As described in the introduction, there are approximately 4 million workers in the public safety 

community in the U.S., comprised of FF, EMS, LE and 911 call center workers, to name just 

a few of the major categories. They differ organizationally, jurisdictionally, and geographically

[6], and have a variety of needs related to communication and technology. Thus this project 

demands a well-thought out and rigorous sampling strategy in order to produce results that are 

generalizable.

Since demographic factors such as age, years of service, and gender may play a role in 

participants’ views related to public safety communication, purposive sampling3 was applied

 3 Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where characteristics of a population and the objective of the study are used to 

choose members of population to participate in the study.

Design and revise 

data collection tools; 

identify sample; pilot 

and revise protocol

Recruit participants; 

conduct interviews; 

transcribe recordings

Create initial 

codebook; engage in 

group and individual 

coding sessions and 

discussions

Identify emergent 

codes and themes; 

analyze data and 

codes; write analytic 

memos

Identify relationships 

in the data and 

codes; gather 

demographic data; 

develop resources 
8

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

in Phase 1. The sampling involved seeking participants who represented the full range of first 

responder experiences. Phase 1 was also a convenience sample in that participants were often 

those who were available during our data collection times and trips.

3.2.1.1.Sampling Strategy

To provide a representative sample of first responders in the U.S., multiple variables were 

considered to develop the sampling strategy. These variables are detailed below.

Role and Jurisdictional Diversity

There are a wide range of different types of first responders. They have different roles and 

responsibilities, as well as different communication and technology needs. The sampling 

strategy includes interviewing FF, EMS, LE, PS (public safety personnel who are cross-trained 

in all three first responder disciplines – FF, EMS, and LE), and COMMS. Having input from 

each of these different types of first responders allows exploration of the similarities and 

differences among them, as well as the connections in their work.

The perspectives of first responders from a variety of positions within each of the public safety 

disciplines were also included since each level has differing needs related to communication 

and technology. Participants were currently in the field or had previous experience in the field, 

many having worked their way up the ranks into their current positions. Their responses 

represented not only their current positions and perceptions, but also those from when they 

were in the field as patrol officers, firefighters, or other first responders.

Another important demographic variable is jurisdictional diversity. The jurisdictional 

relationships among various agencies including federal, state, county and local may impact 

first responder requirements. These inter-agency relationships will be considered in future 

iterations.

Geographic, Size, and Economic Diversity

Due to the varied public safety issues faced in different parts of the country, geographic and 

cultural diversity were primary considerations. Areas for interviews were chosen that provide 

reasonable coverage of the depth and breadth of geographic and cultural diversity in the U.S. 

Also taken into consideration was coverage of the varied types of incidents that first responders 

face. These areas as shown in Fig. 3, align well with the 10 regions defined by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [7].

Across the U.S., urban (U), suburban (S), rural (R)4

, and tribal (T) districts are sampled to 

ensure that cities and districts of different sizes and different economic realities are represented 

(marked with the nearest airport codes in Fig. 3). These communities have different needs and 

experiences related to public safety and communication. This approach provides insight into 

the many different experiences of public safety communication across the U.S., ensuring 

coverage of both typical and unique experiences. The goal was to conduct five interviews each 

 4 U – Territory inside an urbanized area or a principal city with a population of 500 000 or more. Urban areas represent densely developed 

territory that have a densely settled core with densely settled surrounding areas. 

S – Territory outside a principal city and inside its own urbanized area with a population of at least 50 000. Suburban areas represent those 

in close proximity to densely developed urban areas.

R – Census-defined rural territory that is at least 5 miles or more from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is at least 2.5 miles 

from an urban cluster (territory with a population between 2 500 and 50 000).
9

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

with police officers, firefighters, and EMS personnel in urban areas; three interviews with each 

discipline in suburban areas; and two interviews with each discipline in rural areas.

Fig. 3. Geographic Regions for Phase 1 Interviews.

Another variable related to size and economic diversity is the volunteer versus career status of 

first responders, this relates almost exclusively to firefighters. Of the approximately one

million firefighters in the U.S. [3] about 70 % are volunteer. Of these, 95 % serve in areas with 

fewer than 25000 people, thus generally in more rural areas.

3.2.1.2.Participant demographics

This section presents the descriptive statistics characterizing the interview participants.

Demographic statistics of the sample are presented below in Fig. 4. These demographic 

statistics were collected using a demographic questionnaire (see Sec. 3.2.2) at the start of each 

interview. 
10

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Fig. 4. Demographic Data (n=1225).

* Total Years of Service: Average=18.89, Range= (1, 40), SD=9.38

While there were very few women in the interview sample, 9.84 %, this is representative of 

the first responder community in general. Women make up approximately 13 % of LE [8] and 

less than 5 % of FF [9]. Most of the women interviewed were in LE, representing the higher 

percentage of women found in that discipline rather than in FF. First responders from a range 

of age groups were also interviewed, providing opportunities to explore if and how age might 

affect their perceptions and experiences. Finally, participants were interviewed with a wide 

range of years of service, from those with less than a year in the field to those with over 30 

years of service. Generally, those with more years of service held different ranks and were 

often in positions of authority, having moved up during their career. This provided valuable 

insights into the ways in which rank and position might impact first responders’ perspectives

related to communication and technology.

The demographic questionnaire included two questions about participants’ experience with 

technology. The first questions addressed knowledge of technology while the second question 

focused on user characteristics of technology adoption. The results are listed below in Table 1.

3.2.2. Data Collection Instruments

A semi-structured interview protocol was developed for use during Phase 1. Based on the 

research questions, input from subject matter experts (SMEs), the literature, and background

knowledge of the first responder community, a separate protocol was developed for each of 

the three first responder disciplines: FF, EMS, and LE. The protocols included a short 

demographic form, a variety of questions related to work tasks, relationships, and 

communication and technology tools, and several scenarios specific to each discipline.

 5 Note that the demographics in Fig.4 are from n=122 first responders, as some participants did not complete all questions on the 

demographic questionnaire.
11

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Table 1. Experience with Technology.

* The percentages do not add up to 100% since participants could select more than one option.

An iterative approach to refining the data collection instruments ensured that language, 

questions, and concepts were appropriate and would elicit valuable responses that would allow 

the research questions for the project to be answered and addressed. To determine face and 

construct validity and to assess language appropriateness for the population, pilot interviews 

with two or three first responders in each discipline were conducted. Several SMEs also 

reviewed the instruments to assess content validity and to ensure all relevant and related

concepts were addressed by the instrument. An alignment matrix was created to ensure each 

of the research questions was adequately addressed and the goals for this phase of the project 

were achieved by the protocols. This ongoing review and refinement of the protocol is 

consistent with the iterative nature of qualitative research.

Based on results from the pilot interviews, a short demographic questionnaire was finalized 

focusing on gender, age and years of service since these three variables might influence 

participants’ perceptions of and experiences with technology. Two additional questions related 

to participants’ ease and comfort with technology were also included. The demographic 

questionnaire was short to allow maximum time for the interviews. Since usability focuses on 

users, their tasks, and the context of use [10], interview questions fell into two main categories: 

context of work; and perceptions of and experiences with communication and technology.

Questions about context of work included descriptions of: their overall job, tasks, and daily 

routine; relationships with other people (their direct colleagues, other first responders, dispatch, 

the community, and the media, for example); and what work is like—both in and out of the 

station or specific work environment. The pilot interviews demonstrated that disciplineQ1. Experience with different kinds of technology: (including 

desktop or laptop computers, tablets, smartphones, and the 

Internet).

Percentage*

 I have limited experience using technology and I don’t know 

much about how technology works.

0.00 %

 I have some knowledge about how technology works, but

often need to ask for help to perform more advanced activities 

– such as to configure the privacy settings on my cell phone.

7.38 %

 I can do most things that I want to do with technology and 

only need help occasionally.

74.59 %

 I can do all things that I want to do with technology without 

help from others.

19.67 %

Q2. In general, when do you adopt new technologies? Percentage*

 I try the latest technologies as soon as they come out. 21.31 %

 I follow technology trends. 41.80 %

 I let others work out the kinks first. 39.34 %

 I wait until my old technology dies. 5.74 %

 I only adopt new technologies when it’s required. 3.28 %
12

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

specific instruments were redundant and a generalized instrument worked well across all 

disciplines. The scenario questions were also found to be unnecessary.

The protocol and all relevant documents were approved by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) Human Subjects Protection Office (HSPO) and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The finalized interview 

questions are listed in Appendix A and the demographic questionnaire is in Appendix B.

3.2.3. Procedure

Phase 1 is based on the collection of in-depth, one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Most 

interviews took place in the workplace, a police station or fire station, for example, in either a 

group gathering area or in a private office or conference room. Each participant was provided 

with a copy of the Information Sheet about the study, and was informed verbally that:

• their participation was voluntary, 

• they could stop at any time without penalty, 

• they could decline to answer any question(s), 

• all data would be de-identified, 

• the interview would take approximately 45 min, and 

• the study had been approved by the HSPO.

Participants were asked for permission to audio record the session. Only one participant 

declined, in that case the research observers took notes about the interview and participant 

responses. Participants sometimes were called away for incident responses. 

Fiscal Year 2017 (FY’17) data collection ran from June through September, with 133 

participants interviewed in a total of 105 sessions (some interviews included multiple 

participants). The breakdown of interviews is shown below in Table 2 below. There was a total 

of 5627 minutes in the recordings and a total of 1 807 pages in the transcripts (in Table 3).

3.3. Data Collection Challenges 

Given time and resource constraints and the importance of performing in-depth interviews to 

hear first-hand from first responders, it is not possible to reach a large percentage of the 4 

million first responder population. At the end of FY’17, the sampling strategy resulted in overrepresentation and under-representation in certain areas such as disciplines, geography, size, 

and economic diversity. For example, career fire perspectives are somewhat over-represented 

in the current dataset due to the initial focus on urban centers, where career firefighters are the 

norm. This will be addressed in FY’18 where the focus will be more on rural areas where 

volunteer firefighters or combination departments are more common. These considerations do 

not in any way diminish the significance and contribution of the findings in this phase of the 

project. FY’18 data collection is intended to address the over and under-representation of the 

individual segments within the first responder population. In the public safety field, there is no 

such thing as perfect representation, because every place and station are unique in some way. 

Interviewing a wide variety of first responders, with a wide range of positions, responsibilities, 

years of experience, and other variables as described in the Participant Demographics section 

was intentionally pursued to address potential coverage and representation issues.
13

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Table 2. Number of Participants Interviewed in FY’17

(a) By discipline

FF EMS LE COMMSa PS Total

Urban 35 11 26 1 73

Suburban 25 6 12 1 2 46

Rural 5 3 5 1 14

Total 65 20 43 3 2 133

(b) By sites visited (using airport codes to represent general locations)

FF EMS LE COMMSa

PS Total

AUS 9 4 7 20

DCA 8 3 8 19

DEN 11 8 10 2 31

NYC 10 2 12

ORD 5 5 4 14

SEA 15 7 22

SFO 7 5 1 2 15 a Although they were not planned for Year 1, there were 3 COMMS interviews due to 

convenience sampling, since they were present at the interview locations and expressed

great interest in participating.

Table 3. Interview Length and Transcript Number

* There were only 105 interview recordings/transcripts - some interviews included multiple participants.

3.3.1. Recruitment and Access

Collecting data from first responders responsible for day to day incident response and 

operations posed several challenges that were not unique to our research team. A major 

challenge was simply gaining access to the first responders. The political nature of the public 

safety landscape was not originally anticipated. Permission was often needed from multiple 

authority levels, or from specific public safety officials, to schedule interviews and start the 

data collection process for a given location. This effect referred to as the ‘gatekeeper effect’ 

[11] wasreflected more in larger organizations than smaller ones. At larger organizations, often 

permissions needed to start or go much higher in the chain of command to obtain the necessary 

approvals to conduct interviews. The requirement to receive the requisite permission to 

interview first responders took more time than originally anticipated and delayed data 

Count* Total Length Average Max Min SD

Interview Recordings 105 5627 (min) 53.59 121 13 18.58

Transcripts 105 1807 (pages) 17.21 42 5 5.90
14

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

collection in some cases. It was often much more difficult to obtain the requisite approvals to 

interview law enforcement than firefighters. Given that it was easier to get permission to 

interview firefighters, more fire interviews than law enforcement interviews were conducted.

Logistically, it was also easier to interview several people at one fire station; they were already 

“at the station” and much more available. In contrast, although there are obviously many police 

stations, patrol officers are out on the road, so they are not typically at the station. In some 

notable cases, officers had to come in on their off time for the interviews. With EMS, the

numbers are even lower since many areas cross-train fire and EMS. Interestingly, when 

interviewing cross-trained first responders, they often represented the fire perspective, even 

when recruited specifically for the EMS perspective. 

Time of year affected the recruitment efforts and schedule as well, with summer travel 

schedules hampering obtaining the necessary approvals. Whereas there are always first 

responders on call, the upper levels of management—from whom we needed permission to 

interview—were sometimes unavailable. 

Those in positions of authority were protective of their first responders and their time, and 

often controlled access to them, and rightfully so. Their time is extremely valuable, and we 

fully recognized that fact, knowing that their assignments and life-saving duties obviously take 

priority over interviews. Unfortunately, such controlled access may have been about more than 

simply protecting their time and may have also been since many first responders currently feel 

beleaguered (for example, law enforcement). Understandably, this sensitivity to externally 

conducted interviews may have led to concern and hesitation to participate.

Another challenge was the difficulty in identifying points of contact (POCs) with appropriate 

jurisdictional authority and connections to the population identified in the sampling plan. POCs 

were identified through professional public safety organizations and public safety conferences 

and meetings. Despite helpful POCs with best intentions, sometimes it was just not possible to 

make the appropriate connections within the tight interview schedule. In a few instances as a 

last resort, stations were contacted without pre-existing POCs. 

The perceived relationship between the project and FirstNet may also have influenced 

participation and approvals. It was necessary to clarify the NIST usability team’s third-party 

neutral research role of understanding user needs, tasks, and contexts of use. A formal 

recruiting letter listing our role and project goals was used to mitigate concerns. 

3.3.2. Time Constraints

The qualitative interview process gathers extremely rich data, but is undeniably timeconsuming. In addition, qualitative data analysis is a highly iterative process. Given the vast 

quantity of interview data (see the Procedure sub-section), this report (Phase 1, Volume 1) 

documents the data analysis completed in FY’17. Therefore, the current document does not

necessarily portray the full breadth and depth of the dataset. Rather than wait to fully complete 

the iterative process of qualitative data analysis, it was deemed more beneficial for the PSCR 

Research and Development (R&D) community to publish preliminary results. For example, 

there are existing grantees and developers who can benefit from this document now. 

Furthermore, a debt of gratitude is owed to the many first responders, schedulers, and POCs 
15

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

who graciously gave their time to help the data collection effort; their voices deserve to be 

heard and be heard sooner rather than later.

Qualitative Data Analysis

This section describes the qualitative data analysis process and procedures used to analyze the 

interview data. The data consist of interview transcripts, demographics, field notes, and 

analytic memos. The interviews and field notes provide an in-depth and yet overarching look 

at first responders and their work in their own words. All interview recordings were transcribed 

by an external transcription service. The transcripts form the major dataset for analysis. In 

addition, research team members wrote field notes related to interviews they conducted, which 

served as additional data for analysis. Data analysis for Phase 1 involves both individual and 

research team coding and analysis sessions.

4.1. Coding

In contrast to coding in the computer science and software engineering domains, qualitative 

coding is a process of labeling sections or chunks of narrative data capturing the essence and/or 

salient features to group, compare, and/or manipulate similar chunks. In essence coding is a 

process for reducing and/or reconfiguring data in an organized and meaningful way. 

Coding is the beginning of the analysis process. The coding process began with an a priori

code list (Appendix C-a A Priori Code list). The a priori codes are a set of labels based on the 

research questions, relevant literature, and an understanding of the communication and 

technology space in the first responder community.

Each research team member used the a priori codes and coded (labeled) the same sub-set of 

five randomly chosen transcriptsto ensure that the codes were being used by the team in similar 

ways and to identify needs for additional codes. The goal of this step was to recognize where 

there was convergence and divergence among the researchers’ coding and to use these points 

of intersection/difference to explore the data more fully. The code book was revised and the

codes were operationalized based on ongoing discussions, ensuring that the multiple points of 

view were captured. Operationalizing each code consisted of providing the definition of the 

code, when to use it, when not to use it, and examples for each code. Examples from the

codebook illustrate the level of detail associated with each code (Table 4). For the full 

codebook (see Appendix C-b).

The second step of coding is data extraction. Data extraction refers to pulling all the data 

associated with a code from each transcript into a separate document. This process of breaking 

apart the data, is a technique to study the data in different ways, providing access to the “whole” 

and to the “parts” to determine if and where relationships exist or what themes might be 

developing across codes. Table 5 provides a view of the data by those codes particularly 

relevant to this report sorted by first responder disciplines. Table 5 presents the number of 

coded extractions from all of the transcripts for all of the FY’ 17 cities: Austin, Washington, 

D.C., Denver, New York City, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco. 
16

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Table 4. Example Codes from Codebook

Codes and Sub-codes Code Operationalization

Context of Work Tasks related to what is done as part of the job

Stress/Overload Physical, cognitive, or emotional expressions of anxiety, tension, or feeling 

overwhelmed

Risk/Safety Situation involving exposure to danger; harm or loss

Relationships The sense of community developed among individuals or groups of people, a 

connection, association, or involvement, including relationships present 

within a discipline, between disciplines, or with the public

Frustration An expression of annoyance, because of inability to change or achieve something

Information Data, evidence, or intelligence related to an incident or to work environment/situation

Control Entity who has the ability/responsibility to act or pass on information

Operational environment This can refer to the station, the department, the leadership, the city/state; anything 

that’s larger than just the user (we)

Problems Identification of issues identified by participants related to doing their jobs

Technology Issues with technology

People Issues with people

Information Issues with information (in getting, receiving, or producing information; situations 

where there was too little or too much information)

Policies/Procedures Issues with formal or informal rules and operating processes and procedures for how 

things should be, have been, or are being done

Rules/Politics Formal or informal guidelines that directly or indirectly govern the work, expectations, 

and/or environments of first responders

Priority/Influence Related to priorities of the administration (e.g., station, local government) 

Technology Devices utilized by first responders to do their jobs or as part of their daily tasks

Reliance on technology Situations when responders don’t know what to do without the technology or when 

it’s not available (either when it breaks or is not appropriate to use)

User characteristics Participant related demographics, or identification of demographic pieces related to 

other work colleagues 

Knowledge/experience/skills Discipline relevant understandings and abilities related to their work

Wish List Things (funding, information, processes, technology, devices, or equipment) that would 

facilitate first responders’ job.
17

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Table 5. Extraction Counts by Code and Discipline

4.2. Analysis

Qualitative analysis is the process of exploring the relationships of the data and the codes to 

identify themes. Analysis includes thematic, negative case, values, and descriptive exploration 

of the data and the codes [12]. Analytic memoing is used to document the relationships of the 

data and the codes. The iterative process of going back and forth between data and codes,

between the full data set and extracted files facilitates the identification of themes, trends, 

outliers and provides an overall impression and understanding of the data.

Themes emerged during our analysis discussions. Early in the analysis discussions, several 

concepts including problems and trust emerged as cutting across the data in many ways. While 

the interview protocol did address communication problems, it was surprising how often the

concept of trust was introduced by participants, even though the interview protocol did not ask 

about it, nor did the team identify trust as a code. Upon further examination, trust seemed 

connected to several items in the codebook including technology, budgets, and people. As the 

coding was refined, each of these three codes became sub-codes under the broader umbrella of 

Problems. Re-examining the data set, it became clear that each of the problem sub-codes was 

related to trust. The team also discovered, that trust was one of the most consistent themes 

cutting across the data, irrespective of geography, city type, rank, age, years of service, or other 

variables.

Analytic memoing continued to document ideas both about the data and from the data. 

Memoing revolved around trust and problems, but also about relationships of first 

CODE FF EMS LE PS Total

Context of Work 510 252 532 9 1303

Context of Work - Stress/Overload 85 27 95 8 215

Context of Work - Risk/Safety 106 36 109 14 265

Context of Work - Relationships 212 93 279 5 589

Frustration 155 53 198 6 412

Information 143 70 93 2 308

Information - Control 71 30 92 2 195

Operational Environment 439 282 368 13 1102

Problems 63 36 32 3 134

Problems - Technology 611 211 631 33 1486

Problems - People 142 32 95 2 271

Problems – Information 136 46 105 2 289

Problems – Policies/Procedures 116 49 112 2 279

Reliance on Technology 37 21 29 1 88

Rules & Politics 2 2 1 0 5

Rules & Politics – Priority/Influence 40 8 28 7 83

User Characteristics 52 26 93 2 173

User Characteristics –

Knowledge/Experience/Skills

153 88 161 5 407

Wish List - Needs 388 121 356 18 883

Total 3460 1483 3409 134 8486
18

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

responders—to technology, to their environment, and to each other to name just a few. The

analytic memos continued to guide the group discussions and thoughts about the implications 

of the findings. For example: What is the relationship between technology and trust?

As with all parts of the qualitative research process, analysis is an ongoing process and 

iterations continue to delve into the data and explore ideas. There are many other interesting 

and important relationships to explore in this dataset. However, this report focuses on the 

themes of problems and trust due to the prevalence and cross-cutting nature of these themes in 

the data, as well as the implications of these themes on acceptance and adoption of new 

technology.

4.3. Qualitative Method Validity and Trustworthiness

Qualitative methods require different approaches of providing validity than quantitative 

methods. Even similar terminology has different meanings. The definitions presented in Table

6 illustrate how qualitative and quantitative methodologies use the same terminology in 

different ways.

Table 6. Quantitative Versus Qualitative Definitions

Qualitative methods rely on trustworthiness as a measure of validity. Trustworthiness consists 

of four different components: credibility; transferability; dependability; and confirmability

[13].

Credibility refers to a belief that the findings are congruent with reality (specifically with the 

reality of the participants). This is accomplished through a variety of measures, including the 

use of: 

• Well-established research methods (such as interviews and observation field notes),

Term Quantitative Definition Qualitative Definition

Significance The number that expresses the 

probability that the result of an 

experiment could have occurred 

by chance.

Identification of trends or ideas in the data 

that are not obvious, but which point 

toward a new, emerging, and/or interesting 

understanding of the data 

Reliability The overall consistency of a 

measure

The dependability of the process and 

product of the research, which can be 

provided through an inquiry audit or other 

means of demonstrating consistency

Validity The method of power analysis 

used to detect a relationship

The trustworthiness provided by 

transparency in study design and process, 

including the delineation of analytic 

processes that are systematic and rigorous

Sample size (n) The number of samples 

necessary to reach a certain 

statistical power 

The number of participants or cases needed 

to reach saturation in the data
19

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

• Triangulation (across time, person, location, and organization),

• Practices to encourage accurate responses from participants (such as informing them 

they can voluntarily withdraw or decline to answer a question at any time, and data are 

collected without identifiers),

• Iterative questioning (to insure consistent data from participants),

• Frequent debriefing sessions among researchers (to explore gaps in the process and/or 

product and insure exploration of varied and alternative ideas),

• Experienced investigators who are knowledgeable about the content and the 

population,

• Member checking (the use of participants and subject-matter experts to review research 

interpretations),

• Detailed description of the phenomena under study and the use of participants’ own 

words. As Geertz [14] said, “A good interpretation of anything...takes us into the heart 

of that of which it is the interpretation. The goal is to provide readers with a “thick 

description” or “densely textured” account of the phenomenon or group under study. 

In fields such as sociology and human-centered design, a thick description of a human 

behavior is one that explains not just the behavior, but its context as well, such that the 

behavior becomes meaningful to an outsider. 

Transferability is about the extent to which findings from this study could be applied to other 

situations. In quantitative methods generalizability is built into the research design and occurs 

at the time the research is conducted. In qualitative methods, it is incumbent on the researchers 

to use rich, thick description of the research process, including a focus on the participants, to 

provide readers with a good understanding of participants and experiences delineated in the 

research. The detailed description of the methodological process promotes the transferability 

of research findings to the readers.

Dependability, or reliability in quantitative terms, refers to the likelihood that if the work were 

repeated in the same context with the same methods, and same participants, similar results 

would be obtained. In qualitative research, dependability is provided by ensuring transparency 

in the research process and providing detail about all research processes. This creates a model 

of the research that others can utilize as a “prototype” to conduct a similar study. In this report, 

specific detailed descriptions of the research design, data collection methods, tools, timelines, 

and analysis processes are provided. 

Confirmability is about ensuring that the findings presented are based on the knowledge, 

beliefs, and experiences of the participants and not on what the researchers believe or prefer.

Confirmability is about providing objectivity—in the data collection and in the data analysis.

One key to this is recognizing researcher biases and pre-dispositions. The research team 

reflected about how the team’s backgrounds and disciplinary training might influence their 

thinking about the project. For example, the sociologist/qualitative methodologist on the 

research team grew up in a family of police officers and fire fighters, and several members of 

her family continue the family tradition today. Her experiences and background knowledge

were monitored so as not to bias the results. The team documented self-reflections in analytic 

memos as a technique to monitor biases and pre-dispositions. Another important component is 

the provision of detailed methodological descriptions of the decisions about the data collection 

and analysis to provide transparency in the process and in the product (the interpretations).
20

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

This type of data audit trail provides a step-by-step guide to what was done, when it was done, 

how it was done, and why it was done. A ‘theoretical audit trail’ (the analytic process and how 

different tools were used to interpret the data) was also constructed. Together, the data and 

theoretical audit trails provide a strong foundation for confirmability of the research.

4.4. Documenting Results

While the overall project has two phases, this report focuses on Phase 1—the qualitative 

component, and on data collected in FY’ 17 as listed in Table 2 focusing on the codes within 

Problems. This report documents Phase 1, volume 1 of the data analysis. Additional reports 

are planned that will address the qualitative analysis results of the complete (FY’17 and FY’18)

Phase 1 dataset.

Results

This section reports on the findings from the data analysis. The section includes the themes of 

problems, trust, and the relationship with technology, people, and budgets given the prevalence 

of these themes in the data/transcripts and the importance of these themes to acceptance and 

adoption of technology. 

According to ISO [15] usability is defined as “the extent to which a product can be used by 

specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a 

specified context of use”. The standard definition identifies who, what, where and how to 

measure. The first tenet of usability is to know thy user. This includes user characteristics as 

well as demographics. The second according to the definition requires a thorough 

understanding of the user’s goals and tasks (the what). A final factor that highly influences 

the outcome is the context of use (the where). 

The results are presented according to the ISO definition of usability with a focus on users, and 

tasks. The best way to present the findings is by using the words of the first responders who 

participated. The conventions for referencing data include:

All direct participant responses are verbatim in blue text and come directly from participant 

transcripts. The participant responses are followed by a notation that is comprised of three parts: 

discipline (FF; EMS; LE; COMMS; PS); city type (Urban=U; Suburban=S; Rural=R; 

Tribal=T); and interview number. Thus (FF-R-009) refers to an FF interview, from a rural 

location, who is fire interviewee number 009. This convention provides assurances to the 

reader of the data’s provenance and that the data can quickly and easily be located within the 

larger dataset when necessary. 

Field notes are qualitative notes taken by the researcher during or after interacting with 

participants Field notes (FN) were used to capture important data beyond verbatim speech 

(gestures, for example) and when audio recording was not permitted. Comments from 

participants drawn from FN are enclosed in Guillemets (<< >>). The notation following these 

comments starts with FN number, followed by the team member number who wrote the notes, 

followed by discipline, and finally by the city type, U/S/R. Thus (FN1-4-LE-U) refers to FN 
21

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

number 1, written by team member 4, an LE interview, from an urban location. Field notes 

represent near verbatim speech from participants. 

The direct participant responses used to illustrate the findings in the following sections are 

exemplars from the coded transcriptions. Each was chosen as an excellent example

representing the set of extracted quotes to describe the concept. For the majority of the 

presented findings an exemplar from each discipline (designated in the notation for each quote) 

is presented demonstrating the cross-cutting nature of the finding. 

5.1. Know Thy User: Characteristics of First Responders

Many studies have demonstrated that usability problems are influenced by product properties

such as functional complexity [16][17][18]. However, user dissatisfaction of technology is 

increasingly caused by usability problems that are not technical in nature but problems where 

the most important issue is that users are dissatisfied with the quality of the interaction 

[16][19][20]. This type of usability problem is the outcome of the interaction between user 

characteristics and design properties. The following two examples illustrate the differences 

between usability problems. Consider a washing machine where when a user pushed the start 

button the machine does not start versus the washing machine where the user cannot determine 

what to do to start the machine. Both are usability problems from the user’s perspectives. 

However, the first is a technical or functional problem while the second is an interaction 

problem. Consider a link on a website that when clicked does not load or returns an error. 

This error again is technical or functional in nature. But the usability problem associated with 

inability of users to find the correct link on a website is an interaction problem. 

User dissatisfaction is often a mismatch between product properties, user characteristics, 

context, and user expectation. Deeper understanding of the interaction between user 

characteristics, product properties, and context by the design and development team can

identify and mitigate interaction usability problems [16].

Thus designing products that satisfy target users requires a holistic understanding of user 

characteristics. According to Mayhew [21] these characteristics include:

• Psychological characteristics (e.g., attitude, motivation, personality)

• Knowledge and experience (e.g., skill and task experience)

• Job and task characteristics (e.g., frequency or use, task structure)

• Physical characteristics (e.g., demographics, color blindness).

Hackos and Reddish [22] in their seminal textbook recommend considering user characteristics 

beyond their tasks and identify a long list of questions including the following:

• How do the users think about their relationship to their work? Are they trained 

professionals, career, volunteer? Are they simply putting in eight hours, working at 

home, on their own time?

• Do they want to invest a lot of time learning a new product or will it be a minor part of 

what they do?

• What motivates them to do the job? The money, the social interaction of the 

workplace?
22

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

• How well do the users read? Do they prefer to learn by asking other people? Are they 

college graduates with experience using complex texts – are they willing to read text 

to understand and use a new product?

• What languages are the users most comfortable using? Do they have a special 

professional vocabulary?

• Do the users enjoy taking risks and finding new ways of doing the same work or do 

they prefer tried and true solutions?

As demonstrated by these questions, when developing technology it is not possible to separate 

users from the things they think and do [22]. Applied properly, the user centered design 

approach requires a deep understanding of user characteristics. The holistic view of the user 

assists in minimizing both technical/functional usability problems such as placement of buttons 

for example and the usability problems users face when interacting with technology. The 

detailed understanding of user characteristics helps to minimizes user dissatisfaction with 

technology and encourages factors such as adoption and acceptance of new technology.

As described in Sec. 3.2.1.1., the sampling strategy was designed to include a wide variety of 

first responders with an array of different job responsibilities, at different levels of the 

hierarchy. In addition to the variability across individual job responsibilities and public safety 

disciplines—FF, EMS, LE—several other important and informative sources of variability 

were incorporated in the interviews. For example, variability in geography, variability in types 

of areas (urban, suburban, rural, and tribal), variability in budgets and size of department, and 

variability in levels of authority.

The discussion of user characteristics is divided into two sub-sections. The first section reports 

on similarities and the second on differences.

5.1.1. Similarities in First Responders

Given the diversity and variability of the user population in this report, it is more telling when 

consistencies in participant responses so clearly cut across all these disciplines—FF, LE, and 

EMS. Two similarities stood out: first responders’ dedication to their profession and the 

variable nature of their work.

Dedication to the Profession

Perhaps key among the similarities was the clear passion and commitment these first 

responders have for their jobs and for helping people. Repeatedly, adjectives like ‘best,’ 

‘exciting,’ and ‘interesting’ were used when first responders were asked to describe their jobs. 

Across the board, first responders love their work and are passionate about what they do. 

For one, it's the best job in the world. We get to have fun all day long. One of 

the biggest things about it is we actually do get to help people on a daily and 

sometimes even an hourly basis. Of course, everybody, you see a big red truck 

going down the street and kids will wave and we wave back at them. I mean, 

it's hugely a public service job. (FF-U-006) 
23

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Best job in the world. Never the same. It's always something new. It's exciting. 

You get to work with your friends. You get to help the community out. (EMSR-002)

I think it's everything. It's challenging, exciting. It's scary at times. I like being 

out and about. I like not having the same thing to do day by day. So that's the 

thing with being a police officer. You never know really what to expect the day 

that you go to work. It can be a slow day with really nothing going on, or it can 

be a busy day where it's just out of control. That's what I like about it. Yeah. It's 

so exciting, I would say that. (LE-U-025) 

In addition to fundamentally enjoying the work they do; first responders also care about the 

people and the communities they serve. One of the ways in which first responders demonstrate 

this care is that they take pride in their jobs, and in their responsibilities to their communities 

and fellow first responders. They are committed to public service, as evidenced by the quotes 

below.

Pretty much, we're going to go help anybody that needs help, whether it's 

medical, fire, anything like that. If they need something, just call the fire 

department, we'll come and help them. I'd say that we're at their disposal for 

them. So if it was really coming down to, "What do we do?" just be anything 

for the citizens we work for, pretty much. (FF-R-009)

So that's what my job is, is to try to make people's lives better while protecting 

them and protecting my guys in the process. (FF-S-040)

I help others. I mentor other police officers. I mentor other people. ... I arrest 

people who break the law. I enforce traffic violations. I help officers learn their 

job, learn exactly what it is they're supposed to do. I am like a teacher. I 

proofread reports. I make sure their arrests have probable cause to go with the 

arrest. I make sure the case report and the arrest report all tell the same story. 

So we're also like storytellers. (LE-U-026)

First responders routinely go above and beyond the call of duty, for example, by arriving to 

work early to help the off-going shift or prepare for their days (or nights), mentoring others, 

doing extra projects for their stations, volunteering for additional assignments, and regularly 

conducting and participating in extra training. Many of the places visited had their own training 

facilities, and regularly conducted hands-on training drills for their first responders. They often 

came in on their own time to help train “newbies” or review a training themselves (FF10-4-

FF/EMS-U).

So I come in in the morning probably around 5:30 in the morning. My shift 

doesn't start until 7:00, but I've got a lot of stuff to do beforehand. And basically, 

I pull up the schedule for the day to see what personnel are working. (FF-S-041)

Typically, I report to my duty assignment, whatever station that may be by at 

least 6:00 AM. Our report time is at 7:00. So that gives me an hour ahead of 

time to just kind of help with a last minute call or whatever needs to be done. 

Makes smooth transition. (EMS-S-015)
24

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

We're multi-faceted. We're teachers, doctors, nurses, medics, moms, dads, 

coaches, counselors is[sic] a big one, mental health specialists, which is what 

we get a lot of in [city redacted]. We're jack of all trades. We do everything. 

Report takers, problem solvers, crime fighters. I mean, we do everything in [city 

redacted]. (LE-U-013) 

User characteristics of the first responder population interviewed clearly include passion, pride, 

commitment, and dedication to their jobs. These characteristics suggest that first responders 

are willing to devote attention to technology even when the technology is interfering with their 

primary task or job. Instead, the technology should rise to the occasion. 

Flexibility

When asked to describe their work, first responders discuss the importance of being flexible 

and willing to go into unknown and dangerous situations daily. They see themselves as 

problem solvers who must continually adapt to rapidly changing and highly stressful incidents.

You can get a call with absolutely no information. You can get very basic 911 

hang up and then at that point, you would know absolutely nothing and you 

walk into potentially anything. You can walk into a murder scene, you can walk 

into a burglary, you can walk into someone needing medical assistance. I mean, 

you can walk into absolutely nothing. So our officers are very good about being 

flexible for these things... Officers are good about being reactionary and 

flexible. (LE-U-005) 

You got to be able to adapt to the minute's notice, not even a minute, a moment's 

notice, from what your reaction is to what somebody else's reaction is. (LE-U025) 

We often come upon situations that are very unusual and require a fair amount 

of thought to figure out how to best approach them. So that's the thing that I 

kind of enjoy about my job. Not only do I get to help people but it's often very 

challenging to try to figure out how to mitigate whatever the problem is with 

minimal risk to ourselves and to help the folks that we're there to help. So it's a 

very interesting career. (FF-S-040) 

First responders know that each day and each call will be different and require different kinds 

of thinking and action. For many first responders, this was the “excitement” about the job, 

what they loved about it. Additional user characteristics of first responders include flexibility, 

adaptability and the ability to solve problems in stressful situations.

Given the uncertainty of many situations and the necessity to make complex decisions quickly, 

first responders need as much information as technology can provide. But this information 

must be easy to understand and use so as not to overtax an already stressful situation by 

increasing the cognitive load. First responders certainly do not need the added complexity and 

challenges often associated with technology. First responders’ flexibility and adaptability 

should be saved for the emergency situation and not to interface with the technology. Limited 

cognitive abilities in stressful situations must be focused on the actual problem as opposed to 

the technology. 
25

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

5.1.2. Differences in First Responders

Despite the many similar user characteristics and similarities in how they described their work, 

there were differences among and within the various disciplines of FF, LE, and EMS. These 

differences imply that there is no easy “one size fits all” technology and data solution. 

So that’s the challenge [for developers]. Whatever you come out with, it’s not 

going to be one size fits all. (EMS-U-001).

Key differences were in their communication needs, perception of generational differences, 

and the perceived value of their profession.

Communication

In sharp contrast to the overwhelming consistency in participant responses regarding first 

responders’ commitment to their jobs and to helping others, very distinct differences were 

observed in their communication and information needs and practices, depending in large part 

on their discipline, their position, and especially their role in the chain of command. Participant 

responses clearly show that not all first responders need access to all types of communication 

tools, nor to the same communication tools—everyone does not need everything. There are 

some important similarities across disciplines; for instance, FF, EMS, and LE all need to know 

the location and nature of incidents, and traffic patterns while in route to a location. However, 

it is critical that technology developers and data providers know that even within a single 

discipline, technology and information needs differ based on both individual first responder 

roles, and the scale and nature of the incident to which they are responding. 

In the public safety realm, communication is a hierarchical act in that people at different levels 

need different tools to communicate and have different reasons for communicating and 

potentially different types of information to communicate. For example, for FF it was much 

more efficient at a fire scene for one person to control the communication.

We're very strong in the practice of the chain of command. So when my 

lieutenant is sitting right seat of the engine and we are going in an incident, 

unless there is something desperately wrong or I need to communicate with 

something that he's asked me to keep communicating to him with or about, I'm 

not talking on the radio. He's the lieutenant and that kind of helps filter it a little 

bit, right? Not every guy is going to be out there going, "Oh, I see this, I see 

this." I'm going to come straight to [my lieutenant] and I'd say, "Hey, did you 

catch that?" And filter it that way. It's probably the most-- I believe it's the most 

appropriate way to try to manage that radio traffic and get the most critical 

information out there in an appropriate manner. (FF-S-035) (Suburban 

Firefighter EMT)

Not everybody needs to talk [at a fire scene]...it’s [about] controlling the 

communication...There's certain information that I could tell them to reinforce, 

and then there's certain information that I kind of hold back so that it doesn't 

stop the flow of the incident... I help the communication and flow of the incident 
26

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

and sometimes I have to control what is disseminated to them. (FF-S-041) 

(Suburban Battalion Chief)

If I went on a call right now, I would be dealing with two battalion chiefs, three 

engines, two truck companies, a rescue squad, so I have a lot of people...so we 

organize that by either just talking to the officer in charge of those engines or 

breaking them up into groups and talking to just one person. (FF-U-014) (Urban 

Assistant Fire Chief)

In FF, information and communication needs differ drastically between incident commanders

(IC) and the firefighters under their command. The ICs need a much more holistic view of the 

incident to monitor and direct all teams involved, whereas the individual firefighters are often 

completing very specific tasks and communicating only with their immediate crew. Likewise, 

information and communication needs for a single-family home structure fire differ from a 

high-rise fire or a large-scale hazmat incident.

For EMS, information and communication needs of an EMS squad supervisor responsible for 

directing multiple crews are different from those needs of an individual paramedic and his/her 

partner. Coordinating and providing patient care for a mass casualty incident (MCI) is different 

than dealing with a single cardiac arrest patient.

In LE, information and communication needs for a single patrol officer during a routine traffic 

stop are very different than those of an incident commander in charge of coordinating police 

response to an ongoing active shooter incident. The needs of shorter duration incidents versus 

more extended ones, such as public protests and demonstrations require different information 

and communication. 

During incidents, another communication need is accountability and location tracking. Those 

who monitor and direct personnel expressed the need to have the capabilities for accountability 

and location tracking of the crew, units, and building occupants. 

There's a lot of rescue stuff for downed firefighters. It would be great to have 

location devices on firefighters' hats so that I can see, "I have two in the 

basement right now and there's supposed to be only two. Good. I have three on 

the second floor, and there's supposed to be five. Where are your other two 

people? Hey, there's a mayday in the basement." And, "Okay. It looks like I 

have this engine in the basement, and they must be calling the mayday." It'd be 

great to have a-- and again, that's that screen. It'd be good to have just a regular 

house layout. (FF-S-041) (Suburban Battalion Chief)

So I think that my number one thing would be that, either through the use of 

our radios or some device, that we can get accurate physical accountability on

the fire ground. So it's not just the X, Y coordinate. I want the X, Y, Z coordinate. 

(FF-U-014) (Urban Assistant Fire Chief)

You can actually pull up locations, you can pull up overheads of locations, you 

can touch screen. So like if I respond and someone's barricaded inside their 

house, I can pull up the location on [service name redacted]. I can touch screen 

and go, "Officer Jones is there, Officer Smith is over there." You can actually 
27

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

map out your tactical situation so you can have awareness.... Everybody on the 

call, you can track people by their GPS locator on the radio so you know where 

officers are at, at these critical incidents. If you have, whether it's a barricade or 

a bad car accident or something, it gives the commander the ability to know 

what's going on at the entire thing. Right now we actually end up using paper 

and pencil to do that. (LE-U-029) (Urban Assistant Patrol Chief)

I can tell you that for large-scale events, from the command side of things, I 

would like to see or have some type of a bookletsaying, "Okay, you know what? 

These ambulances are coming from this direction and these ambulances are 

coming from this direction. Where can I place them so that they don't 

running[sic] into each other or direct them in a way...?" (EMS-U-010) (Urban 

District EMS Chief)

Communication needs vary dramatically according to the chain of command, the type and size 

of the incident, and responsibility for accountability and location tracking. 

Generation Gap

Another difference that emerged from participant responses was with respect to age and the 

perception of a “generation gap” similar to what is seen in the culture at large [23] Many 

participants with extended years of service spoke of how younger folks were “better” with 

technology, and how older members were often resistant to working with technology and 

adapting to new tools. While many saw the younger generation as more technologically “savvy,” 

they also saw this savviness creating other communication issues, like the expectation of 

instant communication, and the loss of important skills, for example map reading skills and 

interpersonal skills.

I think we're starting to see the trend for immediate gratification, or immediate 

need of information to make decisions. And having that immediate access to 

that information is a good thing, but as soon as we don't have access to that 

information instantly, there's that "Oh no" type feeling in these people that 

haven't grown up with maps and need to relearn how to look at a map and read 

a map to get them to a location. Just pre-plans. And understanding that it can't 

always be instantaneous on a device, you need to have a back-up plan. (FF-S015)

I mean there’s a lot of folks that just don’t use it [the new system for car to car 

communications]. A lot of the old-timers, so to speak, that are not 

technologically savvy, they are not interested in even attempting to figure it out. 

(LE-S-033)

These new guys coming on now, they can run circles. The two generations 

would be perfect together. You can have the younger generation show the older 

generation how to work the system, the computer and everything else, if you 

can have the older generation come in and actually lend them some of their 

social skills. It would be a perfect mix. (EMS-U-009)
28

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

In addition to hierarchical communication needs, communication is also impacted by age as 

illustrated in the above quotes. First responders with many years of service have skills sets that 

include more social and interpersonal communication skills. They tend to rely less on 

technology using stronger experiential skills. In contrast the younger generation tends to be 

more technology savvy and embraces new technology more quickly. 

Perceived Value of the Profession

Differences also emerged with respect to the perceived value of the three disciplines. 

Everybody loves firefighters: “So when they see us, from childhood, they have a positive idea 

of what firefighters are."(FF-U-012) In contrast, several LE and EMS participants spoke about 

how they felt that they were not always valued and respected as first responders, and the lack 

of support they felt.

I think law enforcement, because of the lack of community support, because of 

the lack of political-- because of the lack of support as it relates to our 

administrators and our politicians and elected officials because they are more 

consumed with the pressure from the public, it is making our job very difficult 

because the average patrol officer does not feel like the administration has their 

back. (LE-S-033)

We have the same courage. We have the same that a firefighter has, that a police 

officer has. And sometimes, like I said, we’re not recognized at that level, and 

it’s difficult to accept...Sometimes we don’t get the credit that we deserve. 

(EMS-U-010)

Some of the LE participants noted how this lack of respect translated into fewer young people 

wanting to go into the profession. As a consequence, several departments felt the need to lower 

hiring standards to attempt to maintain adequate staffing levels.

I know that we have definitely lowered our standards for hiring in the last few 

years. I've seen it, it's pathetic, to me personally, to see that we lower our 

standards. We should never lower our standards. If anything, as we become 

more of a professional society in our group, we should have higher standards in 

my opinion. We've lowered our standards just because we can't make the quota 

to get bodies in to actually do the job. (LE-U-005)

I don’t think people are quite as keen about being police officers as they 

were....We’re losing as many people as we hire. And I think it’s—talking to 

other agencies, they’re saying the same thing. It’s just not as many people want 

to be a police officer as they used to. (LE-U-029)

Given there is direct correlation with advanced education to solving complex tasks and 

problems, lowering hiring standards suggests different user interaction paradigms and training 

approaches. As described in Sec. 5.1, cognitive load is a definite factor in user interaction and 

dissatisfaction with technology.
29

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

There were also differences in the relationships that first responders developed with their 

colleagues. For example, FF often described the relationship with their colleagues as a “family,” 

not surprising since they always work in a team and they cook, eat, train, exercise, and live

together in a firehouse. In contrast, it is more difficult to develop those relationships in LE, 

where police officers spend little time at the station, and are generally patrolling alone (whether 

in a car, on a bike, or on foot). The work, according to one participant, is: “Lonely, it’s a lonely 

job” (LE-U-013).

5.2. User Characteristic: Trust

This project is about communication, and ultimately, communication is a human endeavor, it 

is about human connection, even when that connection is made through technology. Although 

technology can enable and enhance communication, it can never replace the power of the 

human relationship. As organizational consultant, Simon Sinek notes: “A team is not a group 

of people who work together, a team is a group of people that trust each other.” [24] Effective

communication requires trust, which is built when positive connections are made repeatedly 

over time. It is the build-up of positive human interactions over time that leads to trust, 

cooperation, understanding, and acceptance. 

In general, trust has three components:

• Honesty – you do what you promise to do,

• Competence – you do what you promise effectively and efficiently,

• Benevolence – you do the right thing.

Honesty, competence, and benevolence are the foundations of trust, and when someone has 

reliably demonstrated them, a trust relationship is built. This trust relationship is developed 

over time when we continue to experience these three components, and through repeated 

exposure to positive experiences and outcomes. Reinforcement of the positive experiences 

over time continues to build the trust relationship.

It is important to note the fragility of trust. While trust is not built in a day, a single event can 

erode or even destroy trust. When first responders do trust (in each other and in the technology), 

they are able to focus on their primary task with minimal communication. Firefighters 

remarked on how trust and human connection influence communication.

The best fire grounds are run when you hardly hear anything. There's a lot of 

implicit communication on the fire ground, and the good crews have it and the 

bad crews don't. So in my crew, we have implicit communication. We've 

worked together for a long time. We have a game plan for every event we're 

going to come to. (FF-U-003) 

I know that the people I’m riding with tomorrow, if we have to cut a car, we 

might not have to say a word to each other. I can look at my technician or my 

officer right in the eyes, and I know what I need to do. (FF-S-039) 

As the quotes elucidate, when there is trust, you know that everyone is where they are supposed 

to be and doing what they are supposed to be doing. Thus, there is often no need for 

communication.
30

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

During the data analysis, the relationship of trust to many of the problems identified by the 

first responder participants emerged. The relationship of trust to three highly salient factors 

emerged: technology, people, and budgets & organizational polices. The three factors do not 

exist in a vacuum, but are interconnected. Trust is implicated in each of these—first responders 

do not always trust the technology, they do not always trust people outside of their work 

community, and they do not always trust the contexts that govern their work.

What first responders do trust is each other. Repeatedly, we heard how they have established 

deep bonds with their colleagues, that facilitates communication and simplifies their work and 

the execution of their primary task. First responders are members of a team who trust each 

other. 

The experiences of the participants related to technology, people, and their environment lead 

to an overarching lack of trust that often results in frustration for first responders. The 

development of this trust takes time and relies on first responders knowing that their input and 

experiences matter. Fundamentally, this trust has an impact on the acceptance and adoption of 

new technology and the ability of first responders to do their work. The following sections

identify these trust relationships from the data and the ways in which trust does or does not 

facilitate communication and the adoption of new technology.

5.3. Technological Barriers to Effective Communication

Many participants spoke about the importance of technology that was “tried and true”, that 

they “trusted,” rather than new technology that they did not know. Often, participants did not 

see the need for the new technology. They did not trust it yet, “... the unfortunate thing is that 

even as things become easier or become stronger or better for us, that first impression of 

technology as a whole is challenging and complicated and unreliable.” (FF-S-032) Trust is 

built over time and requires good experiences. Unfortunately, many participants’ experiences 

with new technology have predisposed them not to trust technology. For many first responders, 

new technology is not predictable, a key component of trust.

In my opinion, technology should make life easier, not harder. Right? And if 

the radio doesn’t do anything other than just add more weight to your belt—

with these new radios, I’m not accessing any new channels that I didn’t have 

privilege for. (LE-U-003)

So there’s technology that isn’t good, or that we don’t understand the use for it.

It doesn’t make our job easier. The goal is safety, but it doesn’t really seem to 

make it safer. (EMS-S-014)

I mean, the big thing is everything we use, I mean, we don't have time to mess 

with it, or tweak it, or play with it. It has to work the first time, every time, or 

people will just to stop using it. They will just refuse to use it and go back to 

the old way of talking on the radio. (EMS-U-003)

User’s first impressions of a new technology heavily influences trust of that technology, 

adoption, and continued use. 
31

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

5.3.1. The Paradox of New Technology

Reliability is recognized as a primary concern of first responders. While all users of technology 

have at some point experienced glitches and problems, the concern of technology reliability is 

exacerbated in emergency situations. Participants consistently emphasized wanting their 

current technology to work. New technology is not always perceived as the right answer to the 

problems they face. Instead, they overwhelmingly spoke about how the improvement of 

current technology is what they want and what they believe will be most helpful. When 

answering the interview question “if technology could do whatever you wanted it to, what 

would you want?” – first responders’ answers reflected the most pressing problems on their 

mind – most of the time the pressing need was to make the current technology work rather than

desiring new technology. Many participants described this tension.

Instead of introducing all this extra new stuff let's, one, make sure what we have 

actually works better. And then, two, let's not rely on it so much. (FF-U-042)

And I don't know what the answer is, but I mean, there's hundreds of millions 

of dollars of grants that have been thrown towards it and we get better but I 

don't know if-- I don't know what the answer is to that streamless[sic] 

communication. Practice. But I mean, there's always technology that's going to 

give you problems. (FF-U-021)

Give us good, basic technology. (LE-U-013)

I'd like to see great cell phones and great MDTs but really this [the radio] is it. 

(LE-U-031)

Participants’ concerns with new technology were observed throughout the data. The idea of 

technology being “a theory and a concept” that was developed outside of the intended context 

of use is one that resonates throughout participant responses.

The idea of emergency alerting on radios is absolute crap. It’s a theory and a 

concept that was created in an air-conditioned room on a whiteboard, but when 

you’re scared to death, you’re going to do what you do 99.9 % of the time, and 

that is you’re going to hit the side button. (FF-R-008)

But all in all, the adoption of technology and the level of technology that we 

have is pretty outdated, it seems. Yeah. And I think that that-- as prevalent as 

the kind of hesitation to change is throughout the department, I would say it's 

also, maybe ironically, there's also a very common feeling that our technology 

is old and outdated and doesn't work. So it's kind of an-- it's kind of a catch 22, 

right? We don't want to use new technology, it's not reliable, but at the same 

time, our technology is horrible and it's outdated and we want something better. 

(FF-S-032)

Several firefighters in a major urban area spoke about biophysical sensors and how 

<<everybody’s on that bandwagon>>, but they were greatly concerned also about all the issues 

that could arise, the unintended consequences, and possible litigation.

<<What happens if a firefighter blood pressure gets high, you do pull him off?

Then you need an ambulance. Do you leave him on and if there’s a mistake or 
32

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

something happens to him are you responsible? Really it goes on and on. All 

this stuff sounds good until you think about the consequences.>> (FF10-4-

FF/EMS-U) 

These examples underscore the point that even if “better” technology exists, it is not 

necessarily useful for first responders and their work. First responders want their input and 

experiences fully understood and considered in the development of new technology. As one 

police officer stated:

That's the biggest thing with a lot of the stuff is you make it, but you never test 

it out on the real person who's going to use it. And then will it get lost in 

translation, and then it becomes useless. You may have thought it was a great 

idea. And it might be a great idea, but there's a few tweaks that don't make it 

useful at all. (LE-U-036)

Just because technology exists, does not mean it makes sense considering first responder work 

and responsibilities—in other words, just because we can does not mean we should. While 

many first responders do not want “technology for technology’s sake,” they do want new 

technology when it makes sense for their work. Participants want their current technology to 

work as well as the technology that is available today to the public. In an EMS interview, a 

Paramedic noted how the global positioning system (GPS) in their vehicles was not nearly as 

good at the Waze app. First responders expressed tremendous frustration when they knew 

there was better technology, for example, one battalion fire chief described a tablet they 

currently use:

So the tablet is the biggest complaint. It's clunky. It's slow. I mean, if I can pull 

up my iPhone and get a map of the scene quicker than I can on there, then what's 

the point? I don't know why it's so slow. It doesn't do things that you just think 

it would do. (FF-U-044) 

Cell phones and their applications were certainly the clearest and most mentioned example of 

generally available technology. Some departments provided cell phones for all first responders. 

Often first responders (across all three disciplines) were using their personal cell phones for 

communication and for access to data and information. Participants also noted many problems 

associated with the use of their personal cell phones, specifically the legal implications and the 

fact that phones could be subpoenaed due to information on them. In spite of this, most first 

responders felt that the benefits outweighed the potential problems and chose to use their 

personal cell phones for work, although they said they would much prefer to have an up-todate department cell phone.

While first responders questioned the appropriateness of new technology for their work, many 

also questioned why departments were slow to implement current technology that could 

improve their work environment—especially related to cell phone technology. In some ways, 

they were asking: If we can get all this stuff in our personal lives why can’t we get it 

professionally? The following quotes are indicative of a sentiment heard across participant 

responses.

She [my daughter] goes to a computer and she types in Find My Phone and it 

pings the GPS signal off of her phone, and she goes, and she finds it underneath 
33

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

the couch or it’s on the bus at school or what have you...if everybody in the 

globe has the technology to find their phone, why can’t they find me based on 

my radio? (FF-U-002)

Our current system is, like I said, it’s kind of a very like slimmed down version 

of Google Maps. More like MapQuest, like 1990 style where it doesn’t give 

you a whole lot of info other than the streets. When I was on patrol, I usually—

if I was going somewhere new or if I was having to go across town, I would 

just pull up Google Maps. I wouldn’t really look at the work computer because 

Google Maps knows traffic. (LE-U-003)

I mean, if the regular person running an errand, and then an Uber has to find an 

address quickly and can do it accurately, then you'd think that it'd be quite 

important for the ambulances to be able to do that. You can be detailed to an 

area you're not familiar with...So if the average person would do it, it seems 

crazy that the ambulances don't have it yet, but they don't. (EMS-U-011)

It's hard to explain to folks why I can get this cellphone that does all this stuff 

for a few hundred dollars, but it costs thousands of dollars for a radio that does 

not near as much as the cellphone does with current technology. (FF-S-040)

Participants opined that affordability of new technology for public safety and budgets are the 

main reasons for a lack of access to the technology, for example, department cell phones and 

the applications. In addition to the upfront cost of the phone, ongoing costs include data plans, 

IT support, maintenance, and replacement. 

Many participants feel overwhelmed by evolving technology. They see changes with 

technology as happening too quickly and find it difficult to keep up financially or 

technologically. This may be due to a first responder culture that is, as one participant put it, 

“hesitant to change” (LE-U-013), something echoed in most of the interviews. 

It seems like everyday something new is rolling out, and then the next day it's 

old news. (FF-U-006)

I think some technology can cause some problems. Technology advances can 

be an issue, maybe as not catching as fast as we want. Or maybe we're using a 

system that's one down from what's already happening because I'm sure you 

know as well as I do, technology is always moving, and a jurisdiction has to 

operate under here because they've already spent a lot of money on particular 

ends, and it may not communicate with that technology because it's outdated.

(EMS-S-014)

Those things are out there but they're not really utilized very well by us 

currently. And some of that has to do with the fact that it's change and it's 

different. And the speed at which technology changes is a lot faster than the 

speed at which the personnel on the fire department change, is maybe the most 

politically correct way to say that. (FF-S-032)
34

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

For a profession that I got into that I thought was supposed to be the most 

adapting profession of the world, we're the least adapting profession of the 

world. We hate change. We absolutely hate change. (PS-S-002)

First responders’ resistance to change combined with the rapid pace of technological advances 

and limited budgets contributes to first responders believing that they are always “behind.”

There is an aspect of stability in being behind the curve or being late adopters of technology. 

As with all information technology (IT) shops, it is a balancing act. While first responders want 

new and effective features, they require stability and reliability. 

5.3.2. Interoperability

Since interoperability is recognized as a current problem in the public safety communication 

community, it was not surprising that it emerged as a problem in participant responses.

However, the pervasiveness of interoperability in participant responses was surprising —it was 

mentioned by all participants, in one way or another. For example, systems (e.g., radios) that 

do not talk to each other; forms that do not auto-fill even though information was entered on 

one platform; devices that cannot communicate with each other; or organizations that cannot 

connect with each other even though they use similar devices. These are just some of the 

interoperability issues first responders mentioned. 

It's very easy to have 12 different devices that all do one thing. For the most 

part, if we can get three devices that are somewhat compatible with it or there's 

a lot of ability to sort of do multiple things, then we're always going to try to do 

that. But there's still a lot of diversity out there in terms of technological 

platforms.... I think that I would like to see a-- well, in time interoperability....

For example, we have Apple phones, we have the Microsoft tablets, we have 

whatever it may be. And some of those don't mesh well, as far as trying to 

transfer information, or whatever. That's one of the technology things that we 

are continually struggling with, is compatibility. I personally try not to get unitaskers. (FF-S-035)

We’ve got one design for body cams, we’ve got one design for in-car cams, 

we’ve got one design for CAD, and then we’ve got all these other small things. 

And they’re all from different vendors, because of whatever reason. The city 

was trying to beg, borrow, steal these things from different vendors and they 

didn’t want to pay full price, so none of them integrate well together, which is 

a huge issue for us. (LE-U-005)

[speaking about how forms do not auto-fill]...it’s frustrating and especially 

when they’re trying to get us to finish our reports and get back to the service 

from the hospital as quickly as possible. It’s like they want us to get all this 

done real quick, but they don’t want to provide us the tools or can have them 

configured so that we can do it quickly. (EMS-U-017)

The lack of interoperability forces first responders to spend more time on secondary tasks such 

as paperwork than on “helping people” which they see as their primary task. The lack of 

interoperability also complicates the communication process resulting in longer response times.
35

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Is this compatible with that so we're not wasting hundreds of millions of dollars 

on all of that sort of stuff?" And for me, personally, that's really the name of the 

game and how are we most efficient with what we have now and will it integrate 

with some of the stuff in the future, and how do we go from there, so? (LE-S033)

First responders use many different tools and technologies to accomplish their tasks, and they 

do not trust that affordable options that will work with the current tools and technology they 

have will be available.

5.3.3. Unintended Consequences

While researchers, developers, and vendors often focus only on the functionality of new 

technology, first responders are concerned about the unintended consequences. Technology 

today can provide first responders with information at their fingertips and new ways of seeing 

and dealing with emergencies, however there are often unintended consequences of technology

including distraction, loss of situational awareness, and cognitive overload. First responders’

work environments can change quickly: from the fire station to the truck to a fire scene, from 

a patrol car to a street corner for example. When speaking about the fast-paced and changing 

nature of their work, many first responders discussed the need to perceive and interpret the 

environment around them (situational awareness) as critical to decision making. Many first 

responders, especially police officers, expressed concern that technology may interfere with

the use of innate human senses to interpret their environment. When you pay attention to the 

technology, you are not always paying attention to what is going on around you, which could 

potentially cause safety issues for the first responders. 

It's a huge officer-safety issue having an officer doing a report, or whatever, on 

the phone, looking down at the phone and stationary in one particular spot for 

too long. That's a concern. (LE-U-014)

You're distracted no matter what. You're not paying attention to your 

surroundings. ... With all the different functions, it makes actually seeing 

what's going on in the neighborhood harder. And somebody's looking at this 

box to tell them what's going on as opposed to actually looking at the 

surroundings and figuring out what's going on. (LE-U-024)

On bikes, to be honest with you, kind of a downside of technology in iPads and 

stuff, and I think it's the same in a car, is now my eyes are here and I'm not 

paying attention to what's going around me. So I know that if we had those 

devices what I would tell my officers is, "We need one person just watching 

while somebody else is doing something." So that's why I would go back to my 

desk to pull that information. I wouldn't want to do that out in the field. (LE-U031)

I think the technology is good when you’ve got the time to use it. Meaning it’s 

safe to do it. As far as, well I got eight people in the corner, but I’m on my [app

redacted] looking. I mean, first and foremost, your safety first and using your 

head. If you got time, and I don’t want to say distance, but a safe area where 
36

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

you could access this computer and not worry about somebody taking a shot at 

you. I think that’s my biggest fear. That’s me personally is. I know what areas 

are bad in town. I know where those hotspots are. (LE-U-025)

Sometimes we put too much emphasis on what the technology says versus we 

know what’s going on and human intelligence. Human intelligence is probably 

a little bit more than the computer. (LE-U-026)

For LE personnel, use of technology can be a major source of distraction pulling focus from 

their primary task of awareness. Similarly, for EMS participants, the required use of 

technology for record keeping results in less of a focus on their primary task—taking care of 

the patient.

<<Operation command wants this information in real time, but our 

responsibility is on people... There is an expectation of technology versus the 

reality of the field. It can only do so much and really more focus needs to be on 

patient and not on technology.>> (FF10-4-FF/EMS-U)

In a mobile recording unit back way back when we started documenting patient 

care, people thought that, there were certain individuals at a higher level who 

thought that, "Hey, if we give them a drop-down list of things that they can 

select, all they have to do is select, select, select, select, and that'll tell us-- it 

will be easier for us to grab data so that we can do some Q on it." So they don't 

have to write a report anymore, and I didn't agree with that. I think that we 

always have to paint the picture is what we call it. What you saw. What you 

found. Give me some facts. What you did. What you didn't see. And so I think 

technology may get in the way of-- that we take that human aspect out of it and 

you're just tapping drop-down lists or typing yes or no... (EMS-U-010)

Distraction is only one of the unintended consequences about which participants expressed 

concern. Many spoke about information overload and the tension between the deployment of 

technology and new sources of information and safety concerns.

It's hard to manipulate a phone in stressful situations, and you don't want to be 

looking at your cell phone when there's a guy with a gun. (LE-U-013)

I think there's a lot of pros but my standpoint, I just don't want people to get 

overloaded with information. Sometimes you can. So I would love to come up 

with a way for communications to be able to prioritize on safety issues first. 

Because now they've got computers, they've got cell phones, they've got so 

much technology stuffed into the cars. And so I don't want that important 

officer safety to get lost in the snowstorm of information coming towards them. 

(LE-U-029)

But so they keep trying to do these things, and I think they're trying to do it 

with safety in mind, but they're not really keeping what really your day-to-day 

job is in mind. So the safety hinders you from doing your job. (EMS-R-007)

Another unintended consequence of technology is the disruption of relationships. Most first 

responders see the development of relationships as imperative to their work. They see 
37

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

technology as often interfering with relationship building. There is a preference for face-toface communication, among each other as well as with the public. Technology needs to be able 

to facilitate this communication, not hamper it.

But the newer, they live on their phones. And I get mad at the newer officers 

because they do that. They're on their phone. And I'm like, "You know we're on 

a traffic stop. We don't know who that guy is. We don't know," and they're on 

their phone. And I tell them, "Please get off your phone until we finish this 

traffic stop." But it's the younger generation. They live on their phones. (LE-U013)

They don't go into the fire house and socialize like kids from years ago. You 

know why? Because they don't have to. They go in, they check out their rig, 

and then they stare at their phone for 24 hours. They don't interact, they don't 

do anything, yeah. So our last class, there's a no-phone rule in this building. 

They don't bring their cell phones in. We had forced communications, we had 

forced where they had to learn about each other, and do this and do that. And I 

tell you what, I get compliments on this class that just graduated....And when I 

told the-- like I told this class, I said, "You're very independent of each other. 

You are all head-down all the time. You're not engaging. You're not 

interacting." And I said, "What concerns me about that is that you are rendering 

patient care to people soon. You're going to be out in the field. How are you 

supposed to figure what's going on with them if you can't communicate with 

them? You must communicate with them. (EMS-U-009)

Given first responders’ concerns about unintended consequences, their views of the overall 

value/benefit of technology may clash with those of researchers, developers, and vendors.

5.3.4. Over-reliance on Technology

Another view expressed by participants in the data is the belief that there was a growing 

reliance on technology. Many participants expressed concerns that this reliance might interfere

with their core mission. First responders believe that they should be able to perform their 

primary tasks independent of whether technology is working and available.

Many were hesitant to depend on technology that they viewed as not always trustworthy: 

signals can be dropped, cell towers can go down, equipment can break. Many continued to 

carry pagers, or “cockroaches” (EMS-U-001) because they were always there and never died—

they could rely on them. The concern of reliance on technology triggers contingency 

planning—first responders wanted to ensure there would always be a back-up for what they 

needed to accomplish.

The participants stressed the importance of always having contingency plans in place. More 

seasoned first responders recognized the importance of not relying too heavily on technology.

I think if you-- if you start doing too much with technology and relying on it 

too much when it goes down, you won't know how to-- or a person wouldn't 

know how to respond if you relied too heavily on technology. I think it's good 
38

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

for us to move forward with it, but I don't think we should put too much weight 

into it because then, like I said, if it goes down-- like when a computer goes 

down at work, and you're scrambling to find a notepad so you can write down 

addresses and things of that nature. (LE-S-038)

Contingency. And that's why I have T-Cards to not only do radio 

communication stuff, but resources, engines when they move around, and we 

lose our card system, or we lose connectivity to the mother ship. How do we 

track our resources, and how do we maintain that situational awareness? So it's 

things like that that-- I think technology is good, but you can't drop what we've 

learned over the years that have worked. ... I'm not sure that they [young people] 

understand when we have an event and what happens to those cell phones. So 

again, this is that learning curve and, "Oh, that's old technology." Pagers. I still 

carry a pager because it's not attached to any cellular network, and it's not 

impacted by civilians. So having that mode to be able to communicate or at 

least get information out that's not impacted by the event is huge. All of my 

engines, all of my command staff and leadership all still have pagers just for 

that reason. And then I get the newer kids saying, "Oh, that's old technology. 

That's ancient. Why do we still carry a pager?" Well, they haven't experienced 

an earthquake or a big event where everything comes down. (FF-S-015)

First responders who participated are constantly concerned with what if technology fails, what 

do you fall back on? Having a contingency plan in place with other methods of communication 

or ways to do their job was important. For example, if the mapping software goes down, first 

responders need a backup—perhaps a paper map, “going old school” as many of them put it.

So, at that point, it’s sometimes best—instead of holding on to technology like 

you do, it’s just better just to go back to the old school, and say, “Okay, what 

do I have?” And just start writing it down... (FF-R-008)

Before you used to have a wooden board with a piece of paper on it and you 

could quickly jot down notes...You don't want to limit your patient care by 

doing this [entering information on a tablet] so much that they [patients] just sit 

there. This [a paper notepad] requires no password and it will always boot up... 

That thing [a paper notepad] requires nothing more than the ink that comes out 

of your pen. This thing [the tablet] doesn't always work, right? (FF-S-035)

... So I think it's good to have. I think it's a great tool. I think it's a tool we all 

should use. But I don't think it's something we should all rely heavily on in case 

it does go down, which has happened before, so. (LE-S-038)

We do have cell phones on the ambulances. They don't have data. They're just 

flip phones. So we can do phone calls. That's another backup and a way for us 

to communicate with them if the radio system is down or we're having problems. 

(EMS-U-001)

Participants feel it is imperative that all first responders, including those who are younger and 

technologically savvy, know how to use the “old school” tools. Technology should augment, 

not replace, user skills such as using the “old school” tools.
39

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Those respondents with significant experience were concerned that the younger generation 

may not know how to approach a situation when technology is not available. They also 

expressed concerns about the younger generation not knowing how to interact face-to-face 

with someone because they are so used to interacting with technology and not with people. 

And especially as our department-- some of the older generations, a lot of them 

are retiring and we're becoming a younger department again. So a lot of these 

guys, they're good with computers. The old guys, I've heard them complain 

about computers and stuff. The young guys are obviously much more 

comfortable but on top of that, they haven't ever had to learn how to do it 

without it, so now that even makes it worse because now they're really 

dependent on that technology. (FF-U-004) 

People just getting new on the job don't have that ability to talk to people... 

they think there's going to be an app that's going to save their life, where they 

can send an emoji or a meme that's going to get them through a situation. There's 

not. Sometimes you just got to figure out how to talk to people... they'll bring 

me something, ‘Hey, what about this one?’ ‘Did you ask them that?’ ‘Well, no.’ 

‘Go ask them.’ ‘I don't know how.’...people hide behind technology. (LE-R017)

Many participants saw a “generation gap” related to technology, with negatives related to both 

older and younger first responders. “Older generations” were resistant to change, and younger 

generation were too dependent on the technology. Many saw the dependence as especially 

problematic since technology was often unreliable. 

5.3.5. The Importance of Radios 

Almost all participants, irrespective of discipline, emphasized how they trust their radio and 

noted how it was their ‘lifeline’ and the ‘most important piece of equipment.’ As one urban 

police officer noted: “I’d say the most important tool that we have is the radio” (LE-U-004). 

While first responders recognize the importance of the radio, they are often frustrated by the 

problems they continue to experience. Many of these problems are known: 

• Coverage problems due to urban canyons, subways or basements, or dead zones in rural

and other areas,

• Cord problems,

• Channel problems.

First responders have developed workarounds for many of these known problems. However, 

many still expressed frustration, as described below by a suburban firefighter:

And then if you're in that high rise or wherever you are, and you find you don't 

have coverage, somebody basically has to walk back out to find coverage, use 

a cellphone, or pick up a landline phone to communicate what they need, if they 

need help or whatever. So that's the most challenging circumstance, is when 

you got those two-person crews, everybody goes into the incident, and then they 

find themselves out of coverage. So that's, from a fire rescue perspective, the 

trouble scenario. Law enforcement deals with that on almost every call, 

essentially. Law enforcement doesn't have the luxury of traveling in multi-
40

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

person units... So that's where the coverage is really important. To have robust 

coverage available, to try to minimize the number of times that those single 

resources find themselves out of communications. (FF-S-040) 

We heard repeatedly that the cord that connects the radio to the remote speaker microphone 

melts, rendering the radio useless and jeopardizing firefighters’ safety. According to one 

incident commander two of his firefighters were killed in the line of duty because they could 

not communicate with him due to the microphone cords melting.

Numerous attempts to contact them. We never heard back from him, and I 

believe it was because of his microphone cord failing.... And I think it's almost 

criminal that they are giving any firefighter in this country a microphone cord 

that, at 160 degrees, begins to degrade. (FF-U-014) 

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has established a committee to develop a new 

standard for hand-held radios, remote speaker mics and future voice communication devices 

expected to operate on the public-safety broadband network to address failures of such devices 

in high-heat, fireground environments. According to Bob Athanas, chair of the NFPA 1802 

committee and a Fire Department New York (FDNY) firefighter, “the committee is reviewing 

portable radios reliability after recent structural firefighter fatalities were blamed partly on 

failings of radios and accessories. ...The standard is focused on the interior, structural 

firefighter facing hazardous environments.” [25]

The number of channels can be another problem with radios. Depending on their roles and 

responsibilities, most first responders noted that they only use one or two channels on their 

radios—and that they almost never had the need to use the others. In fact, they often reflected 

on how most people did not even know how to access the other channels. 

We buy a system, and we buy a radio that’s going to hold a million channels in 

it. When am I going to use a million channels? And so I’m paying for capacity 

that I’m not probably going to use in a life of that piece of equipment. (FF-R008) 

... with these new radios, I'm not accessing any new channels that I didn't have 

privilege for. They're mainly for if for whatever reason you're doing law 

enforcement stuff out of state or whatever, then I guess you can add some new 

channels with that. But majority of the officers are never going to do that. So 

it's like a newer radio with some new technology that, as far as I know of yet, 

the city has yet to-- they have GPS and then [this and that?], but the city's not 

paying for it, so we're not using it. So it's like bigger, badder[sic] new radios 

that we're not really using to the full capacity. (LE-U-003) 

So we have radios that you're able to scroll to and get to those places, but 

because we don't do it very often, it's not real easy. It's kind of clunky. (FF-U014) 

A distinction must be made between the number of channels used by most first responders on 

an everyday basis and the number of channels used in multi-jurisdictional or multi-disciplinary 

incidents and events. In these cases, having access to multiple channels is beneficial and 
41

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

necessary. Many Incident Commanders remarked that they do indeed use a wide range of radio 

channels for complex incidents or large-scale events (e.g., parades, festivals, sporting events). 

Some first responders need the full range of channels and access that radio technology has to 

offer, while others do not perceive that they will have a use for the larger range. This highlights 

that “one size doesn’t fit all” and perhaps vendors and developers need to recognize that a 

single department might need access to different levels of communication technology at 

different price points. 

First responders often feel that their departments are ‘held hostage’ to radio technology in some 

ways by vendors who make technology beyond what most of them need and can afford. As a 

result, there is a lack of trust and a fair amount of frustration—with the technology and the 

companies who provide it. While participants know that the radio is their lifeline, what they 

would like is affordable technology they can trust at all times, no matter where they are. 

5.3.6. Usability

Many first responders stressed the need for usable technology. First responders expressed 

usability needs in terms of easy to learn, easy to use, and saving time. Several participants 

referred to usability as the ‘Fisher-Price model.’ 

But for firemen, it needs to be built by Fisher-Price. It's got to be bacteria 

resistant. It's got to be waterproof. You've got to be able to throw it in the 

dishwasher. It's got to go through high temps, got to go through low temp. It 

can't have thin wires. It's got to have big buttons because I'm wearing gloves. 

It's got to be built for a three-year old. Because this is how we use it. We use it 

in the water. We use it in the cold. We use it in the heat. We use it with calls.... 

(FF-R-019) 

But when you're in a dynamic environment, you need relatively simple what I 

call "Fisher-Price technology." Big shapes, big buttons, colors, things like that 

so that I don't have to scroll down menus and things like that. I need it very 

simple because I don't have the time or the mental capability or the bandwidth 

to be looking at a lot of different things. When you're under stress, you want 

something that will do simple things quickly. (FF-S-035) 

I think there's room for it as long as it's durable and it's user-friendly. That's 

huge. Because when we need the technology, we need it to be simple. We don't 

need it to be complex because we don't have the time to work through 

complexities in anything technology because our decisions are instant, and 

some things that we need to do need to be made. The decisions need to be made 

now and not in 10 minutes. We're not sitting in an office and trying to sort 

through different programs and analysis. We need to make a decision now. And 

so technology is great, but if it's complex, it kind of is counterproductive, so. 

(FF-U-025) 

In the police world, if you want somebody to use something, it has to be simple. 

The more complicated it is, it’s very seldom getting used. (LE-R-001) 
42

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

No. It's over-complicated. I call it "dumbifying." They should "dumbify" a lot 

of-- just make it simple. Cops are smart, but we're smart in a different way.... 

Simple, simple, simple. We want simple, easy to use, simple. (LE-U-013) 

The pervasive term used by participants is simple. First responders require technology 

solutions that are simple to use, simple to learn, and simple to integrate into their environments.

5.4. Social Aspects for Effective Communication 

Public safety is all about people. Participant responses show that first responders care deeply 

about people and work hard to build relationships with those around them. Participants realize 

that building relationships and establishing trust is critical to their work. 

First and foremost, first responders trust their colleagues. One first responder articulated this 

trust relationship. 

But for the most part, we are family. So not just because we're together 24 hours 

a day at a given time. But due to the job we have and the level of danger and 

risk associated with it, you kind of get to a point where there's a level of, "I've 

got to know you have my back," and vice versa. (FF-U-034) 

The trust among colleagues is a requirement to perform their jobs effectively and efficiently.

In addition, trust has an impact on communication. When the trust relationship is present, 

communication can often be implicit, but when that trust has not been established or has eroded, 

then more explicit communication is necessary, as evidenced in the quote below from a 

suburban fire fighter. 

It definitely requires a mutual trust. And I think that a lot of times people do it 

[talk on the radio] because they've seen that they can't necessarily have that trust 

all the time. And a lot of times people would rather rely on the expectation that 

you can't trust the units because it's probably safer that way, right? So you can't 

blame them for that. For saying, "Hey, if I don't tell them to do this it might not 

get done." Versus, "If I tell them to do it there's a little more radio traffic but I 

know it's getting done." So they have to weigh that in their heads. And that's a 

benefit that we have here because right now if we were in a fire, our chief of 

this department can run that with us. And if he's command, he knows that he 

doesn't need to tell us what to do. But the ... County Battalion Chief might not 

know us and might not know that he can trust us. We've never proven otherwise 

but maybe if a different rescue squad has, or a different engine company has. 

And then because he might not-- he might have experienced that lack of trust, 

he might just rely on that. (FF-S-039) 

Fire fighter (FF-S-039) recognizes that trust is sensitive to associations. A negative experience 

with a group or member not only disrupts that trust relationship but also tends to erode trust 

with other associated groups or members who are similar. Thus trust erodes when one of the 

components—honesty, competence, benevolence—is violated A final attribute of trust is the 

asymmetric relationship between building trust and destroying trust. A single event can erode 

or even destroy the trust relationship but building trust requires slow, steady, and consistent

interaction, which requires time. 
43

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

First responders interact with many people during their duties in addition to their colleagues. 

Many of the problems first responders’ experience in dealing with others results in a lack of 

trust. Participants often articulated their calculation of the trust they did or did not have in 

others, based on previous interactions. They also talked about the credibility they had in 

different groups of people based on what they saw as their motives. Sometimes they discussed 

the trust others, like the community, had in them and the ways in which they worked to develop 

this. The following sections explore the different groups that first responders in our sample 

interacted with and the levels of trust they did or did not have. 

5.4.1. The Context of Communication 

The development of interpersonal relationships relies on communication. In turn, 

communication helps build trust. First responders generally believe that one of their primary 

responsibilities is to build relationships with others (for example, with the community and with 

their colleagues). They recognize that opening lines of communication are crucial. 

I mean, it's funny if you look at personality and look at how people behave, 

when you analyze people communicating or working together, they tend to 

work together if they can talk to them... But as soon as you make it so they can 

just casually talk to each other, then the relationships grow. And it's not even 

an intentional thing but it just-- because that foundation is there, they talk, and 

then they work together more. And I think that's important. That's a 

subconscious thing that actually happens when you look at interpersonal 

dynamics. (FF-R-019) 

The power of communication with others is undeniable. Unfortunately, communication today 

has become more and more impersonal. The increased use of cell phones, texting, email, and 

social media are often seen as inhibiting the personal interactions between people that are the 

foundation of deep, meaningful relationships. Simon Sinek in his video on Millennials in the 

Workplace [26] describes the human need for social interactions and social skill sets necessary

to create deep meaningful relationships. “Trust doesn’t form at an event, in a day, even bad 

times don’t form trust immediately. It’s the slow steady consistency. We have to create 

mechanisms where we allow for those little innocuous interactions to happen.” To establish 

trust, there need to be opportunities for consistent interaction among people. 

The participants recognize how technology can disrupt relationships among their colleagues 

and the communities they serve. In fact, many emphasize the value of face to face 

communication and interactions as the underpinnings of the foundations of trust. 

Most communication, preferably, is done face-to-face. You have less chance 

for a misinterpretation of the message. You can maintain eye contact, interpret 

body language and posture, and things like that. So face-to-face is always the 

preferred means of communication, even on the fire drill ground. We try to do 

face-to-face communication as much as we can...... So first and foremost, faceto-face communication is priority. (FF-S-033) 
44

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

The value of talking directly with each other and with those they serve was a consistent 

message. However, most participants also noted how many recruits today no longer have the 

social skills necessary to engage in this way.

But you just look at kids today and society, and everybody's so wrapped up in 

their phone and their texting and the computer, that there's a lot less 

interpersonal communication that I don't think is a good thing. (FF-U-34) 

I mean that's another issue is texting. You can't talk to anybody anymore. That's 

our biggest problem right now and that's why we're in the issue nationwide 

because nobody knows how to talk to anybody anymore. ... They don't know 

how to communicate. (LE-U-010) 

One sergeant from an urban law enforcement department summed it up. 

Talking to people is so powerful. That’s the number one tool. We cannot forget 

that. That's kind of what the most difficult part about this whole thing is. We're 

all human beings. I'm a human being. My victim's a human being. The 

offender's a human being. We're all human beings. That kind of gets lost in the 

day-to-day grind. When you start just going by the numbers, and start looking 

at stats, and this and that, it gets lost. And my partner and I never lost that, and 

we were able to come up with phenomenal results based on building trust 

relationships within the community. ... The police can't be everywhere at all 

times, but the community is everywhere at all times. Can't forget that. And if 

they're willing participants, if they trust you-- and that comes with work. See,

trust doesn't come from a community-police event. It's just an event. When the 

event's over, the trust is over or that engagement is over. It comes with building 

relationships over extended periods of time. (LE-U-023) 

Ignoring the influences of technology on communication runs the risk of destroying long term 

first responder relationships, preventing the establishment of new relationships, and further 

eroding trust. Continuing to foster opportunities for face-to-face communications and personal 

interactions remains a need and priority for first responders, especially with the public. 

5.4.2. The Public Context 

First responders are easily identifiable by their uniforms, badges, apparatus, and vehicles to 

the general public. Also, activities and services performed by first responders are visible to the 

public. This constant visibility influences both the first responders’ and the public’s behaviors 

and perceptions. The public visibility often prompts rapid adoption of new technology by first 

responders. 

The relationship between the community and first responders is changing in part due to 

technology as described in the previous sections, such as the impersonal nature of technology 

preventing strong connections with the community. Other changes are related to new policies 

and procedures impacting knowledge and understanding of the community they serve. For 
45

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

example, in most areas it is no longer a requirement for first responders to live in the 

community they serve. 

I think our biggest thing is because we hire outside [city redacted], like, 

hypothetically, recruit from, I'll get that recruit from [location redacted]. Has 

never been to [city redacted], never been on the bus, never been on a [public 

transit redacted]... And all of a sudden now, he's a cop in [city redacted]. (LEU- 010) 

Right now, a third of my staff lives out of the county because they can’t afford 

to live here. They commute to work here. So I don't like that, but I don't have a 

lot of choice. My people live as far away as [city redacted]. That's 150 miles. 

(EMS-R-008) 

The impact of hiring from the outside is about more than just the commute. Those from outside 

the community do not know the city in the same way as people who live there or who grew up 

there. Unfortunately, this alone will have an impact on their ability to build relationships and 

develop trust. When a first responder grows up in and/or lives in the area, he/she understands 

the population, the people and the place, that those from outside may not. Often, community 

bonds and relationships pre-exist, or at least they have a greater likelihood of being developed, 

in part because they have had hundreds if not thousands of “little innocuous interactions” [26]

with members of the community which allow them to establish meaningful trust relationships.

Building Public Trust through Interaction

Most first responder organizations recognize the need and long-term benefit of community 

interaction and actively pursue opportunities to engage. As the participants relayed, first 

responders participate in many community activities from education programs, to installing 

smoke detectors, to “Coffee with a Cop.” These activities take them out of the department 

setting and into the community, where they engage directly with community members and 

develop relationships with them. 

I think it's our interaction with the community. Very rarely do we say no to a 

request that the community makes for some kind of public appearance. If they 

have an event at the school, we're going to be there. If there's an event at the 

park, they're going to call us and ask if we can attend, and we're always there. 

So we're very visible in the community. We're not just sitting, waiting for a call 

to happen. They do have a lot of calls too, but we're also very visible, which is, 

I think, one of the reasons why we have so much support. It's because they know 

that we're there for them even if it's not an emergency. (FF-S-037) 

First responders across all domains sampled recognized the importance of visibility in their 

communities. This visibility resulted in community support for their work. Many first 

responders intentionally spend much of their day out in the community preferring this visibility 

to the department setting. 

Yeah. We try to—you do the ownership. By having it [same patrol area] every 

day you know everybody on the street. "Oh that's [name redacted]. That's so-
46

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

and-so." But the biggest thing is you get a hold of the business owners and you 

check in with the business owners. The foot beat officer, if he does it right, 

would know everybody on the street. (LE-U-010) 

We would literally go to a coffee shop in the morning, get our coffee and review 

all case reports in the morning, decide .... The second thing was we always 

wanted to know the people, and it was an opportunity to meet people. It was an 

opportunity to meet the neighbor. Or while we're standing in the backyard 

looking at where the bike was taken from, the next-door neighbor decides to 

look over the fence and say, "Hey, I noticed that--" and that was so powerful, 

and you can't get that sitting in an office. (LE-U-023) 

<<we actively get out here every day, we want the community to see us, and 

know us, and like us, they’re our biggest supporters.>> (FN6-4-FF-U) 

The participants recognize that through direct engagement with the community they are able 

to build trust. The development of trust with the community is important for first responders 

whose work often depends upon knowing the people and places they interact with in their work.

Public Misconceptions of First Responders

Despite active attempts at community engagement, visibility and interaction are not always 

enough to combat the technology that also contributes to public perceptions about first 

responders and their work. As described by fire fighters in the interviews when they are out in 

the community, sometimes they are perceived by the public as “not working.” 

And that's-- everything we do is crew-based. So we get asked sometimes if 

we're shopping or something, why does it take four of you guys to shop? And 

it's not that it takes four of us to shop. It's that we all have to be together in case 

we get a call because we're not off-duty while we're doing that. (FF-U-010) 

Many first responders reported they are sensitive to looking down at their tablets or cell phones 

while out in the community, for fear they will be accused of watching a video or “playing” 

instead of working. These misperceptions about first responder work often lead to a lack of 

trust on the part of community. The constant public visibility contributes to community’s 

scrutiny of first responders’ activities. 

Technology today, including social media, allows for quick communication with a large 

number of people. This ability to communicate rapidly, often in real time, has tremendous 

implications for first responders and their work. As one participant put it: “there’s goods and 

bads with everything” (EMS-U-001). A field note from one of the sites shows how the use of 

social media by the community can be a positive for first responders. 

While we were talking, a woman came in with a little boy, about 5 or 6 years 

old. She asked if she could take a photo of him with the firefighters because 

that’s what he wanted to be when he grew up. They willingly obliged and went 

outside to take photos. They let him come up in the cab of the truck, with his 

mom taking photos all along. She asked if she could post them and they said of 
47

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

course. He was so excited, smiling and laughing in the lap of the fire fighter, 

what great PR. One of the fire fighters told me <<We love this, this is what we 

love about our job. Kids love us, and stuff like this shows us out in the 

community interacting in positive ways.>> (FN6-4-FF-U) 

Social media today has the capability of reaching a wide audience very quickly. While the 

above example demonstrates how the public can use social media to promote the image of first 

responders in the community, it is often just the opposite according to many of our participants.

From the same field note as above, one fire fighter noted how things are often very different 

for LE.

<<Yeah, this is the difference between us and the cops, people love us and we 

get all this positive press. But when’s the last time you saw something on FB 

about a cop like this? We’re usually the heroes and they’re, well they’re just 

not. Social media for them is usually a nightmare.>> (FN6-4-FF-U) 

Technology allows for easy audio and video recording that can be streamed live or posted 

directly after an interaction. Social media can be used by the public to promote a positive image 

of first responders, it can also be used to unfairly portray a negative image of first responders, 

particularly for LE. Social media has resulted in many first responders shifting how they 

perform their duties in negative ways. Having to consider what the public will post about them 

is an additional stressor for first responders today, causing many to change how they interact 

with people and accomplish their tasks. 

But this is what deters a brand-new officer is when people start putting up 

phones and going well, "You're harassing me." "I'm not harassing you. I don't 

know who you are. And this is the area that I cover. It's the area that I patrol." 

But that normally doesn't make the news. What makes the news is that officer 

harassed this person of color and said-- and he's irate and it's all on film. So 

what happens, we get the tendency of officers go, "I'll just go wait for that 

person to call 911 and just go handle the call," right? "Because I can't get in 

trouble that way. But I can get in trouble, accused of racism or something like 

that, for just making contact with somebody." And they get afraid. (LE-U-010) 

More and more today, there is often an assumption on the part of the public that they have a 

right to know everything in real time, and many first responders believe that technology is 

being used against them. There are positives and negatives to this easy, instant access to 

information and the ability to communicate. 

And there's goods and bads with everything. It's just like this. I mean, 

everybody's a reporter now, right. Everybody has a video camera. Everybody 

has a camera. When it's going to go to instead of calling 911, everybody decides 

to start recording this guy getting beat here or something. Because you can go 

on a call downtown and they want their 15 minutes of fame, right. But, on the 

other hand, for PIO, I can Facebook live, I can do this, I can do everything, I 

can create a whole movie from this thing. So, it's great but it's dangerous. (EMSU-01) 
48

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

As illustrated in the quote, many first responders noted how this instant access complicates 

their work. 

5.5. Friction Between Technology and the Organization 

Many things have an impact on the adoption and use of technology in the first responder 

community. Adequate budgets are required to purchase, maintain, troubleshoot, upgrade, 

integrate, and replace technology. Policies must be written and reviewed regarding the 

appropriate use of technology. Mostly, it is administrators who set budgets and construct 

policies related to the purchase, implementation, and use of technology, often without input 

from those first responders who will be using the technology in the field. Although, the 

interview protocol did not contain any questions about policies, regulations, administration, or 

budgets, these topics emerged as significant issues in participant responses. It is extremely 

telling that these topics were clearly and frequently articulated by the participants. Consistent 

with findings of the previous sub-sections, conflicting priorities leads to a lack of trust. From 

the first responder’s perspective saving lives and property should be the highest priority, which 

results in frustration on the part of first responders. 

5.5.1. Conflict Between Technology and Limited Budgets

Participants often cited budget issues, including shrinking budgets, as the reason that they did 

not have adequate technology. For example, while it was common for those in higher positions 

of authority to have department-issued cell phones, most other first responders did not, and

departmental budget limitations were given as the reason. As noted by an Assistant Chief of 

Patrol “At this point, I would love to buy officers smart phones, but I don't have the funding 

for it. So right now the only communication device that the department supplies is the radio.” 

(LE-U-029) Although some departments may have been able to afford the initial investment 

to buy cell phones for their first responders, they could not afford the ongoing data plans and 

replacement costs associated with cell phones. Given the lack of budgets necessary to supply 

all first responders with department-issued phones, many first responders used their personal 

cell phones to supplement their work technology. Participant responses on this topic mirror 

what was noted in a recent Washington Post article [27], that “Many police officers, firefighters 

and paramedics carry their own cell phones to do the things their department-issued equipment 

can’t.” 

Most participants recognized the benefits of having access to a cell phone today, and as a result 

many were willing to use their own phones to accomplish work-based tasks when a department 

issued one was not provided or available. 

I'd say that public safety is probably on the back end of technology, because we 

didn't have these—I had my personal cell phone way before the department 

gave me one, probably years. But in terms of being able to phone a friend when 

I run across something that's difficult, Google is my best friend when it comes 

to making emergency calls. "[name redacted], I don't remember hydrogen 

sulfide's chemical properties." And so I can just Google hydrogen sulfide, and 

it'll give me the SDS, which is the way that everybody has to-- any hazmat, any 

hazardous material, it's a government regulation that you have to have, basically, 
49

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

a sheet on it that tells about the chemical properties, how it's going to harm 

people. And so I can look it up now on my cell phone. (FF-U-001) 

In this quote, the Battalion Chief used his personal cell phone for years prior to a department 

issued one, recognizing the advantages illustrated above. Later in the interview he also noted 

that today only “officers” received department cell phones in his jurisdiction—a concern that 

was expressed quite often in the interviews. Many first responders acknowledged the ways in 

which cell phones are one of the biggest and best changes in technology they have seen. 

Capabilities including maps and traffic programs, online access to forms and manuals, and 

email/texting were often cited as necessary tools for first responders today. While most 

participants believe the benefits outweighed the risks, they understand that the use of cell 

phones on the job can cause potential safety issues for first responders. 

The use of personal cell phones for work purposes often posed concerns with issues of privacy 

and liability. One urban police officer articulated this idea. 

If it's a personal device, I can see issues in basically just what the officer's 

outlook on it is. This is my device. I don't want to take a picture of a crime scene 

with my cell phone. I don't want that saved on my phone. If I'm now taking 

pictures of a crime scene, can my whole phone be subpoenaed? Are they going 

to see all of my text messages? This is none of their business. This is my 

personal cell phone. (LE-U-004) 

First responders and their commanding officers worried about losing their personal cell phones

to a subpoena—potentially opening their entire phone up for examination, including personal 

data on it. Given society’s dependency on personal cell phones, the thought of surrendering a 

personal cell phone was disturbing—prompting questions like: would they need to purchase a 

new phone, would a department phone be provided to them in the interim, how would they 

access their contacts and other data? First responders did not trust that departments could 

protect them in these instances.

For many, it was also an issue of ‘fairness’—they believed that if they were going to use 

personal devices, the department should pay toward their data plan. Using their personal cell 

phones aided them in their work, however many were frustrated that there was no departmental 

reimbursement. Most were concerned that departments would never reimburse them for the 

use of personal devices due to limited budgets. 

Budgets and technology adoption and integration were tightly coupled issues. Because of 

government procurement policies, many first responders believed that access to new 

technology was limited.

They're trying to make it better. They keep improving, and that's fine. But we're 

also governed by lowest bidder and other restrictions that prevent you from just 

getting what you want. You may have to get-- well, this vendor has this, this 

and this. They're an approved vendor. And that's what you get. (FF-U-012) 

Well, I think in general, law enforcement's always been way behind the curve 

in terms of technology because we're government. We're lowest-bidder type of 
50

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

government, so the stuff we have is the cheapest. It's usually decades old. (LEU-003) 

5.5.2. New Technology Requires New Organizational Policies

Unfortunately, many reported that their departments are continually short-staffed. In addition, 

participants were regularly being asked to do more with less, including adhering to a host of 

rigorous policies and administrative requirements for reporting and documentation. New 

technology, such as body cameras, often places an additional burden on first responders,

especially when it does not properly integrate or communicate with their existing devices. This 

LE quote illustrates both the staffing problem and the technological issue. 

...one of the big issues that I brought up last week with these guys is, this is 

going to be compounded 5 to 10 fold once we go to body cams. The community 

hasn't quite realized that we're already short on bodies, and now you're throwing 

a piece of equipment that's not been field-tested and their city's not buying the 

appropriate equipment to allow that piece of technology to communicate 

effectively with our other toys. So we have to be the middleman as far as 

documentation and metadata as far as making sure case numbers are inside, 

auditing all that information that goes in. So that's going to be a tremendous 

amount of time for us not being on the street as well. (LE-U-005, emphasis 

added). 

Time pressure is ever-present in public safety: emergencies are inherently time-sensitive. 

Another time-consuming task is incident reporting that may detract from time spent responding. 

An EMS quote clearly describes the pressure of quickly reporting and returning to service. 

It's frustrating and especially when they're trying to get us to finish our reports 

and get back to the service from the hospital as quickly as possible. It's like they 

want us to get all this done real quick, but they don't want to provide us the tools 

or can have them configured so that we can do it quickly. (EMS-U-017) 

Understaffing and incident reporting are intertwined: reduced staffing levels place pressure on 

first responders to finish their reporting quickly to return to a ready status. Technology cannot 

solve the understaffing problem, but it can help ease some of the burden of reporting for first 

responders through integration and interoperability of devices and data, and by eliminating the 

need to enter the same data multiple times in multiple systems. 

As described in sections 5.3.1 and 5.5.1 first responders recognize that smartphone could 

address many of their current needs. Many described their current situation and the need to 

carry two cell phones.

If I'm with my family, I don't want to have to carry my pager and my phone. I 

want to have one device that can somehow split that. If I need to be able to do 

work on it, I can do work. If it's also my personal device, then it can do my 

personal stuff, keep those roles separate. But again, it's one piece that goes with 

me. (LE-U-006) 
51

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

This one is personal, this one's department. So I tend to forward my department 

to my personal. Probably not the smartest in the world, legally wise. But to me, 

it's just easier... I don't like carrying two phones. (FF-U-021)

Pie in the sky, I would like it to somehow work with my existing technology. I 

won't have to carry two phones. So if it can somehow handle that transition of, 

this is either my personal phone that does both or my city-issued phone that I 

can - whether it's a double SIM or something - I can still do-- because I mean, 

these phones are huge now, which is great. But I don't want two of them. So 

something like that would be-- it's the only thing that I just hope that we get 

there. I know we will someday. (LE-U-006)

Many organizations including Federal Agencies have adopted new policies that allow for bring 

your own device (BYOD). These policies include solutions for separating the data thus 

addressing the multiple phone dilemma of employees. 

First responders were also concerned that budget and policy decisions do not always support 

their mission of caring for and protecting the public. In some cases, there was an apparent 

tension between first responders and administration. 

I think law enforcement, because of the lack of community support, because of 

the lack of political-- because of the lack of support as it relates to our 

administrators and our politicians and elected officials because they are more 

consumed with the pressure from the public, it is making our job very difficult 

because the average patrol officer does not feel like the administration has their 

back, .... Officers are not patrolling the way that they used to patrol and as a 

result. (LE-S-033) 

In other cases, participants referenced political decisions that had direct, and negative, impacts 

on their work. For instance, one firefighter described effects arising from the decision to unify 

communications centers. 

It's a unit with all the SCBA bottles and a mobile cascade. He called that 

firehouse and asked, "Is [Unit X] available?" And said, "Yeah, [it’s] in the 

firehouse." "Okay, we need them to respond on a water rescue at the river." And 

the guy who picked up was like, "You need the air unit on a water rescue?" 

"Yeah, we need the helicopter." They don't even know—a lot of dispatchers 

don't even know, truly know where the firehouses are, what apparatus. It's a 

huge training issue we have because it's an outside agency and that was the big 

political thing to do and a lot of places like to go to that and want their unified 

communication. But it's not good for these organizations because these people 

don't actually know what they're-- they don't actually know what these things 

are. (FF-U-042, emphasis added)

First responders often saw these decisions as hindering their work rather than supporting it. In 

the above quote, there was a disconnect between dispatch and those in the field. Since the 

decision had been made to go with an “outside agency,” dispatchers were no longer required 

to know the district and often had no sense of who, what, and where they were dispatching.
52

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

The idea that “appropriate policies” could play a role in helping strike a balance between the 

administration’s needs and first responders’ needs also came up in participant responses.

[referring to body cameras] You just have to make certain that at administration 

level, departments put in good policy so administrators can't go on a "fishing 

expedition" to try and find an officer saying something inappropriate or doing 

something inappropriate. So the officers see it as a big brother program and the 

admin sees it as a liability-clearing ordeal, when both of those can equally 

coexist if the appropriate policy is set in place, an adequate policy set in place 

protecting the officer himself. (LE-S-033)

Like the participant quoted above, many first responders said their reticence to adopt and use 

new technology was linked to their assumption that the department was ‘watching them.’ The 

idea of ‘big brother’ was often linked to GPS or location-based technology, and some first 

responders spoke about how they could even be tracked by their cell phone or other device.

5.5.3. New Technology Includes New Responsibilities

Many department level participants believed they could not keep up with new technology

available for first responders. Even if a new technology works reliably and solves a pressing 

public safety need, departments may still be unable—or unwilling—to adopt new technology

even if the budget for the technology is available. Participants reported a wide variety of issues 

beyond affordability that must also be addressed to meaningfully integrate new technology 

into public safety work contexts. Technology does not, and cannot, exist in a vacuum. New 

technology requires adequate consideration for the ripple effects. Examples of ripple effects 

reported include:

• Integration with current technology platforms,

• Deploying new technology,

• Sufficient training of staff on the new technology,

• Allocation of additional resources (funding and/or time) toward training,

• Updating and disseminating Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs),

• Availability of technical support,

• Securing servers for sensitive data storage and handling,

• Development of plans for repair and replacement costs.

Technology is being developed (and purchased) more quickly than the policies, laws, 

administrative procedures, and budgets required to fully support them, especially for the public 

safety community. 

You learn how to use something, you get used to using it, that's obsolete, next 

generation, or that company just went out of business. I just got an email today 

saying that our scheduling program, which is very complex, and I schedule 65 

employees, they're discontinuing it. (EMS-R-008)

Technology advances can be an issue, maybe as not catching as fast as we want. 

Or maybe we're using a system that's one down from what's already happening 

because I'm sure you know as well as I do, technology is always moving, and a 
53

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

jurisdiction has to operate under here because they've already spent a lot of 

money on a particular ends, and it may not communicate with that 

technology because it's outdated. (EMS-S-014)

The constantly evolving nature of current technology means that first responder population is 

always playing catch-up with the technology. The rapid pace of technological change impacts 

technology acquisitions for first responders. As one participant succinctly observed, “It's just 

time and money...” (LE-U-012).

Summary of Results 

As evidenced in the results section, participants are excited about technology and see 

opportunities for technology advances in their work environments, but they want the 

technology to “solve the right problems” – those problems identified by first responders that 

directly impact their work. First responders’ input should be at the forefront when considering 

design, development, and adoption. The participants in the study believe that new technology 

should directly benefit first responders with respect to their primary tasks while improving the 

user experience.

They won't do it. I mean, I can't make any of my employees do anything. Okay. 

They're here 24 hours a day. I've done their job. It's not easy. If you throw all 

kinds of harder stuff to make their job harder on top of it, it's not going to work. 

I mean, I can put all of the sanctions and rules and everything I want on it, but 

I have to motivate people to want to use this technology and show them the 

advantage of using it. We get paid faster. We can post statistics that show us 

what we're really doing, how it's useful. But if it's not to them, what's in it for 

them? (EMS-R-008)

The participant noted that EMS personnel are often “forced into using this technology” with 

the associated huge costs. He expressed concern that even if new technology is adopted at the 

administrative level, it is impossible to convince employees to use it. Successful technology 

deployment and adoption requires a focus on users, tasks and context of use and incorporate 

the usability goals of:

• Effectiveness – how the technology will be useful in first responders’ primary task of 

protecting lives and property while preserving or enhancing situational awareness,

• Efficiency – how the technology will be easy to use and save time,

• Satisfaction – how the technology will promote the first responders’ comfort and 

confidence in use.

• As in the other sections, the participant quotes are representative of the data set at large 

across domains.

6.1. Technology Needs

Most of the interview questions (Appendix A) focused on understanding first responders’

characteristics, their tasks and contexts of use. As discussed in the Results section those 

questions also elicited a set of problems. However, one interview question asked first 
54

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

responders to think outside the box and describe their technology wish list: “pie in the sky 

here—if technology could do whatever you wanted it to, what would you want?” 

Universally, participants want cheaper, faster, and better technology. Beyond those universal 

needs, first responders identified many items. Usability research has shown that users often 

express their needs in terms of specific technology and solutions familiar to them. In order to 

provide the best solutions to users’ needs, usability research focuses on solving the underlying 

problems expressed in the specific technology and solutions mentioned by participants. First 

responders often identified pressing needs and requirements in response to the “wish list” 

question.

Table 7. User Identified Needs, Problems and Requirements

One of the most important codes to emerge across the dataset was problems first responders 

experience. After several iterations, this code was broken into several sub-codes. Additionally, 

problems surfaced in response to the wish list question when participants described technology 

they would like to have to solve issues they are experiencing with their current tools. The useridentified needs, problems, and requirements provide a blueprint for the PSCR R&D 

community to develop solutions for solving the “right problems.” Table 7 presents the 

CODE FF EMS LE PS Sub-total

Problems Urban 20 5 13 0

Suburban 28 8 11 3

Rural 15 23 8 0

Sub-total 63 36 32 3 134

Problems - Technology Urban 285 101 372 0

Suburban 271 56 162 33

Rural 55 54 97 0

Sub-total 611 211 631 33 1 486

Problems - People Urban 81 15 48 0

Suburban 51 12 23 2

Rural 10 5 24 0

Sub-total 142 32 95 2 271

Problems - Information Urban 75 20 62 0

Suburban 40 23 24 2

Rural 21 3 19 0

Sub-total 136 46 105 2 289

Problems -

Policies/Procedures

Urban 56 14 53 0

Suburban 47 13 37 2

Rural 13 22 22 0

Sub-total 116 49 112 2 279

Reliance on Technology Urban 18 17 18 0

Suburban 18 2 9 1

Rural 1 2 2 0

Sub-total 37 21 29 1 88

Wish List - Needs Urban 201 70 236 0

Suburban 145 34 81 18

Rural 42 17 39 0

Sub-total 388 121 356 18 883

Total 1 493 516 1 361 61 3 430
55

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

breakdown of the 3 374 user-identified needs, problems, and requirements from the extracted 

codes by first responder discipline and across urban, suburban and rural areas. The numbers 

represent the number of times first responders expressed the need or requirement. 

Overwhelmingly the user-identified needs and requirements are related to technology, but 

problems with people, with information, with processes and procedures were also identified. 

The user-identified needs and requirements include improvements to current technology as 

well as the development of new technology. Some of the problems are very specific such as 

when firefighters talked about the microphone cords melting for fire fighters. Others were more 

abstract such as police officers talking about a self-driving car and fire fighters wanting an easy 

way to determine how many people are in the building. While some items were identified by 

multiple participants, one should not assume that this indicates a universal need by all first 

responders. As described in the results needs are highly dependent on the discipline, the users’ 

primary tasks and the context of use.

Deeper examination across the user identified needs, problems and requirements, five crossdisciplinary opportunities emerged for the PSCR R&D community. 

• Interoperability – The ability of a system or a product to exchange and make use of 

information with other systems or products without special effort on the part of the 

users—data integration and sharing from radios to radios, systems to systems, devices 

to devices, and departments to departments.

• Reliability and connectivity – 100% connectivity for radio, cellular, and wireless 

networks in spite of geography and topography—urban canyons, subways, basements, 

or other dead zones.

• Accountability and location – Development of technology that provides for 

accountability and location tracking of the crew, units, 911 callers, and building 

occupants.

• Maintenance, technical support and training – Minimization of the burden and costs 

of the associated maintenance, technical support and training of technology imposed 

on users and departments.

• Organizational Policies and administration – Facilitation and promotion of

technology adoption by first responders through policies, procedures, and 

administration to minimize barriers and hindrances to use while supporting first 

responders’ primary tasks. 

These opportunities are what first responders see as the most important for developers to 

address. Given the number of user-identified needs and requirements referenced in Table 7, it 

is not possible to document each in this report. However, the table in Appendix D elaborates 

on the five cross-disciplinary opportunities demonstrating the breadth and depth of the needs

accompanied with first responder quotes.

The PSCR R&D community may already be familiar with many of the underlying problems

that first responders face. Since it is not possible to discuss every problem given the extensive 

nature of the list, five exemplars of current needs are presented below, which were chosen due 

to their cross-disciplinary nature and the frequency with which they occurred in the data. In 

addition, four futuristic needs are identified below, demonstrating the breadth of ideas that first 

responders had in response to the wish list question.
56

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Current Needs

• Better solutions for microphones and cords – e.g., microphones: clarity, feedback, 

noise reduction; cords: melting in high heat, need cordless solution

• Critical communication devices should be the most affordable – e.g., radios, cell 

phones can be less expensive and more ubiquitous

• Longer Battery life

• Improved Location tracking – e.g., provide exact locations (including z-axis) of 

responders, units, callers, and building occupants.

• Real-time information for situational awareness – e.g., provide visual information 

to augment audio communication from radios and cell phones

Futuristic Needs

• Heads Up Display (HUD) – e.g., provide environment and operational information

• Advanced medical equipment – e.g., facilitate faster diagnosis and to support patient 

care on the spot

• Self-driving cars – e.g., allow first responders to attend to more important information 

rather than focusing on driving

• Smart Buildings – e.g., provide smarter intelligence (e.g., occupant number and 

locations) or to put its own fire out

6.2. Technology Guidance

The number and severity of issues first responders experience with current technology 

permeated the interviews and resulting data. Although PSCR is forward-looking and interested 

in new technology, first responders feel strongly that the more immediate improvements to 

existing technology cannot and should not be ignored by the R&D community. Indeed, proving 

to first responders that their input is heard by effecting meaningful improvements in their 

current technology would increase their trust and interest in future technology. To establish

trust and encourage adoption, new technology must be developed with and for first responders.

The cross-disciplinary opportunities discussed in 6.1 provides developers with what first 

responders need in relationship to communication technology. Six user-centered design 

guidelines from the data that first responders believe are requirements for developers when 

addressing the opportunities were identified.

• Improve current technology – improve functionality of what first responders

currently have, make them more affordable, and more reliable, for example, better

radios – coverage, durability, clarity; better microphones and cords. It is not necessarily 

new technology that first responders want, but the improvement of current technology 

that they believe is most important.

• Reduce unintended consequences – develop technology that does not interfere with 

first responders’ attention to their primary tasks. Technology interference can cause

distraction, loss of situational awareness, cognitive overload, and over-reliance on 

technology.
57

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

• Recognize ‘one size does not fit all’ – while there are similarities across the first 

responder disciplines and standardization is important for consistency, compatibility 

and quality, technology must accommodate the wide variety of public safety needs–

across disciplines, personnel, departments, districts, contexts of use. All are different, 

requiring easy adaptability and configurability.

• Minimize “technology for technology’s sake” – develop technology with and for first 

responders driven by their user characteristics, needs, requirements, and contexts of 

use.

• Lower product/service costs – develop technology at price points that departments

can afford, lowering costs for technology. For example, consider the ‘One Laptop per 

Child’ [28] approach where various entities collaborated to make and widely distribute 

rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected technology in areas that could not otherwise 

afford such devices. The goal was not only to design the tool, but to design it at a pricepoint that made it feasible and scalable for widespread distribution. 

• Require usable technology – know thy user and develop ‘Fisher-Price’ solutions –

simple, easy to use, light, fast, and not disruptive. Technology should make it easy for 

the user to do the right thing, hard to do the wrong thing, and easy to recover when the 

wrong thing happens.

These guidelines can promote first responders’ trust with technology, people, and 

organizations. Participants were not opposed to technology, but they want technology that 

makes sense to them and makes their work easier to accomplish. They don’t want technology 

to sever and replace the human connection they see as so important. Equally important is that 

the technology must work with first responders’ other equipment and tools, and cost is always 

a consideration.

Conclusion

New technology is exciting, and the possibilities for it are endless. While new technology may 

sound good and make sense to researchers and developers, adoption requires buy-in from first 

responders. And the key to adoption is trust—<<Trust is the tiebreaker.>> (FF10-4-FF/EMSU)

First responders need to trust the related technology, people, and policies, for new tools and 

technology to be adopted and accepted. Technology is a double-edged sword and there are 

both positives and negatives to it, as one firefighter alluded to.

More than anything, it's like a tool. I mean, a knife can either be a weapon or it 

could be a cooking tool. It's just on how you use it. And with every new 

whatever, new fire truck, new gadget, new app, new everything, there's always 

that double edge of both negative and positive of whatever it is. (FF-R-019)

It is easy to focus only on the positives of emerging technology, without thinking about the 

unintended consequences and additional burdens it may place on first responders. Instead it is 

important to respect the input provided by first responders about their needs and requirements. 

The opportunities and user-centered design guidelines presented above provide the PSCR 

R&D community a mechanism to do this. 
58

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

7.1. Contributions

This is the first time that the voices of first responders are documented using a rigorous and 

systematic methodology focusing on human behaviors, human factors and usability. The 

primary contribution of this empirical report is to present first responders’ beliefs, perceptions 

and ideas about what they need with respect to communication and technology, in their own 

words. To our knowledge, this is the first research effort where trust has been identified as a 

significant factor in successful public safety communications technology adoption. 

The dataset for this project is extremely rich because of the diverse and extensive first 

responder population who participated, representing a wide array of domains, jurisdictions, 

geographic areas, sizes, and communities. This can serve as a valuable resource for the PSCR 

R&D community as it provides a repository of first responders’ needs, problems they 

experience, and what they believe would be most beneficial in terms of communication 

technology. Another resource this project provides is a detailed description of the research 

design, including data collection and analysis processes and findings from in-depth interviews. 

Performing this type of rigorous, systematic qualitative research is resource intensive which 

can be prohibitive for many R&D organizations. Having access to the findings and the 

methodology from this project allows developers to have direct connection to the voices of 

first responders as they work to design, develop, and improve communication technology.

While trust was identified as the “deal maker or breaker” for successful technology, first 

responders identified a variety of needs and requirements, detailed in Appendix D. These needs 

and requirements provide the opportunity for developers to build trust by solving the “right 

problems.” Tackling the right problems is not the only ingredient for success. Successful 

implementations will focus on first responder needs and requirements while also meeting 

higher level needs of interoperability; reliability and connectivity; maintenance, technical 

support and training; policies and administration, and adhering to the user-centered design 

guidelines of improving current technology; reducing unintended consequences; considering

‘one size does not fit all’; minimizing “technology for technology’s sake”; lowering

product/service costs; requiring usable technology. Doing it ‘right’ is a tall order. Fortunately, 

this document and the Usability Handbook for Public Safety Communications [10] provide the 

PSCR R&D community with a blueprint for developing technology for first responders that 

fosters trust while enabling them to complete their tasks effectively and efficiently.

7.2. Future Work

This report documents Phase 1, volume 1 of the qualitative data analysis of the data collected 

in FY’ 17. This analysis focused on first responder characteristics and tasks associated with 

the problems expressed during the in-depth interviews. Additional analysis is underway

examining the first responders’ contexts of use across the FY’17 data. Initial analysis of the 

FY’18 data collections has also begun. An additional report is planned that will address the 

qualitative analysis results across the complete dataset. In conjunction with the qualitative 

analysis, a comprehensive analysis further characterizing the 3 400 plus user identified needs, 

requirements and problems is underway. 
59

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Finally, a large-scale quantitative survey is under development to be distributed nationally to 

first responders. The goal of this survey is to gain a broader perspective from the first responder 

community around the issues identified in the qualitative phase and to provide a degree of 

confidence in the analysis beyond the qualitative. 

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge and thank the many first responders who graciously gave 

of their time to participate in these interviews, the many people who helped coordinate and 

schedule interviews, and the stations and other locations where we conducted interviews. The 

authors would also like to express their sincere gratitude to many subject matter experts for 

their valuable discussions enabling us to gain deeper understanding of users in the public safety 

communications space. The authors also thank Brian Stanton of NIST for his support and 

assistance in this project. 

References

[1] Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 

156, February 22, 2012. Accessed on February 13, 2018 from 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ96/pdf/PLAW-112publ96.pdf

[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017) May 2016 National Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates – United States, Last modified, March 31, 2017, Accessed on February 

13, 2018 from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm

[3] National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (2017) U.S. fire department profile -2015, 

Issued April, 2017, Accessed on February 13, 2018 from https://www.nfpa.org/newsand-research/fire-statistics-and-reports/fire-statistics/the-fire-service/administration/usfire-department-profile

[4] Barry C, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley C, Stevenson F (1999) Using reflexivity to 

optimize teamwork in qualitative research, Qualitative Health Research, 9 (1): 26–4.

[5] Yin RK (2003) Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage.

[6] The Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) (2012) Desirable Properties of a Nationwide Public 

Safety Communication System – Report and Recommendations of the Visiting Committee 

on Advanced Technology of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Published January 24, 2012.

[7] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), https://www.fema.gov/riskmapping-assessment-and-planning-risk-map

[8] United States Department of Justice (2013) Women in Law Enforcement, in COPS –

Community Policing Dispatch. Accessed on October 31, 2017 from 

https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/07-2013/women_in_law_enforcement.asp

[9] National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Firefighting occupations by women and 

race, Accessed on October 31, 2017 from http://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-
60

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

statistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/The-fire-service/Administration/Firefightingoccupations-by-women-and-race

[10] Theofanos M, Choong Y-Y, Dawkins S, Greene K, Stanton B, Winpigler R (2017) 

Usability Handbook for Public Safety Communications – Ensuring Successful Systems 

for First Responders. NIST Handbook 161.

[11] Shenton A, Hayter S (2004) Strategies for gaining access to organisations and 

informants in qualitative studies. Education for Information, 22: 223-231.

[12] Saldaña J (2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

[13] Shenton A (2004) Strategies for insuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.

Education for Information, 22: 63-75.

[14] Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, Basic 

Books.

[15] ISO 9241-210:2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Humancentred design for interactive system.

[16] Kim, C., & Christiaans, H. (2012). 'Soft' usability problems with consumer electronics: 

the interaction between user characteristics and usability. Journal of Design Research, 

10(3), 223-238.

[17] Donoghue, S., & de Klerk, H. M. (2006). Dissatisfied consumers' complaint behaviour 

concerning product failure of major electrical household appliances-a conceptual 

framework. Journal of Consumer Sciences, 34(1).

[18] Law, E. L. C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A. P., & Kort, J. (2009, April). 

Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In Proceedings 

of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 719-728). ACM.

[19] den Ouden, E., Yuan, L., Sonnemans, P. J., & Brombacher, A. C. (2006). Quality and 

reliability problems from a consumer's perspective: An increasing problem overlooked 

by businesses? Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 22(7), 821-838.

[20] Thiruvenkadam, G., Brombacher, A. C., Lu, Y., & den Ouden, E. (2008, July). Usability 

of consumer-related information sources for design improvement. In Professional 

Communication Conference, 2008. IPCC 2008. IEEE International (pp. 1-7). IEEE.

[21] Mayhew D. J. (1999). The usability engineering lifecycle: A practitioner's handbook for 

user interface design. (pp. 36). San Francisco, Calif: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

[22] Hackos, J. T., & Redish, J. (1998). User and task analysis for interface design. (pp. 23-

24). New York: Wiley.

[23] Ramasubbu S (2015) From Gen X to Y and Z: Technology and the Generation Gap,

HUFFPOST, Dated June 23, 2016, Accessed on October 31, 2017 from

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/suren-ramasubbu/from-gen-x-to-y-and-ztec_b_7645410.html

[24] Sinek S (2012) A team is not a group of people who work together, a team is a group of 

people who trust each other, @simonsinek on Twitter, 6 Aug 2012, 12:18pm, Accessed 

on October 31, 2017 from https://twitter.com/simonsinek/status/232556392114974721

[25] Athanas, R. (2014) New NFPA radio standard to fix fireground failures, Dated February 

12,2014. Accessed May 2017 from https://www.firerescue1.com/fireproducts/communications/articles/1670433-New-NFPA-radio-standard-to-fixfireground-failures/
61

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

[26] Sinek S (2016) Millennials in the Workplace, Interview with Tom Bilyeu on Inside 

Quest, December 2016, Accessed on October 31, 2017 from 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vudaAYx2IcE

[27] The Washington Post (2017) FirstNet, broadband network to enable police and fire 

responders to talk to each other, ready to launch, Dated August 2, 2017. Accessed 

October 13, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/truecrime/wp/2017/08/02/firstnet-broadband-network-to-enable-police-and-fire-respondersto-talk-to-each-other-ready-to-launch

[28] One Laptop Per Child Project, http://one.laptop.org/about/mission
62

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Appendix A: Interview Questions

Context and Beliefs of Work

1. What is your job title?

a. If you were describing your job to someone who knew nothing about it 

(like to a kid, or someone from another planet), how would you describe 

it? 

b. Tell me about your daily routine. How does your day begin?

i. If there isn’t one, list the different kinds of things you do during the 

day.

ii. What’s typical communication like for you during your work day?

c. What is it like when you are at the station?

i. Describe your relationships with other folks you work with.

ii. Tell me about the community you serve. 

d. What is it like when you are at work but outside of the station?

Communication and Technology 

2. List the different kinds of technology (devices, equipment) you use to do your job. 

a. How would you describe the technology/equipment you currently use? 

b. Are there apps that you use to do your job?

c. Have there been times when technology has gotten in the way?

3. How (if at all) have things changed in terms of communication since you became a 

first responder?

a. Do these changes make communication better or worse for you? 

4. In a typical day on your job, what kinds of information do you need?

a. Are there other kinds of information you need for situations that aren’t so 

typical—and if so, what is it?

5. If you think about the incidents you’ve responded to over the last few weeks or 

months, is there information that could have helped you understand the scene before 

you got there? Tell me about it. 

a. What kind of information would be the most helpful, either for typical or 

for more complicated calls?

b. How would you want to get that information?
63

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

6. What, if anything, do you think causes communication problems in your work?

a. What, if anything, could help with these problems?

7. Let’s talk out of the box for a minute, describe your technology wish list: pie in the 

sky here, if technology could do whatever you wanted it to, what would you want? 

a. Are there new or different apps you can think of that could be useful? 

8. Is there anything else you’d like to share about your job that you think is important 

for us to know? 

9. Do you have any questions for me/us? 
64

This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8216

Appendix B: Demographic Questionnaire 

Your area(s):  Fire  EMS  Law Enforcement  Dispatch 

 Other Public Safety: _______________

Total years of service: ___________

Location:  Urban  Suburban  Rural  Tribal  Other: ___________

City, State: ____________________ 

Gender:  Female  Male  Prefer not to answer

Age:  18-25  26-35  36-45  46-55  56-65  Over 65

Experience with different kinds of technology: 

(including desktop or laptop computers, tablets, smartphones, and the Internet).

 I have limited experience using technology and I don’t know much about how 

technology works.

 I have some knowledge about how technology works, but often need to ask for help 

to perform more advanced activities – such as to configure the privacy settings on my 

cell phone.

 I can do most things that I want to do with technology and only need help 

occasionally.

 I can do all things that I want to do with technology without help from others.

In general, when do you adopt new technologies? 

 I try the latest technologies as soon as they come out.

 I follow technology trends.

 I let others work out the kinks first.

 I wait until my old technology dies.

 I only adopt new technologies when it’s required.
65

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Appendix C: Qualitative Analysis Codes

(a) Initial a priori Code List

 Frustration—an expression of annoyance, because of inability to change or achieve something

o With dispatch—the person who receives calls from the public and passes them on to the appropriate first responder

o With callers—someone who calls in to 911 or other number to report or ask something

o With technology

o With documentation

o With interoperability

 Technology—devices or equipment utilized by first responders to do their jobs or as part of their daily tasks

o Reliance on—don’t know what to do without the technology (either when it breaks or isn’t appropriate to use)

o Privacy

o Positives about/with

o Problems With—things that lead to a lack of efficiency and/or effectiveness in the technology

• No Reception/Gaps in reception

• Too big

• Too heavy/bulky

• Too slow

• Limited battery life

• Multiple Devices/Systems

- Why can’t they talk to each other (autofill; too many devices/systems, multiple sign-ons)

o Types of (Just list these)

 Technology—User-related characteristics

o Wish List (Just list these)

o Risk—when use of technology has the potential to result in something unpleasant or unwelcome 

o could happen or harm or damage 

o Adoption

• Positive: (Embracing technology)

• Negative: (Resisting technology)

o Skills

• Comfort with/Knowledge about

• Lack of comfort with/Lack of knowledge about

 Technology—Administrative

o Lack of budget

o Policies and Procedures
66

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

o Rules for behavior

o Risk—when use of technology has the potential to result in something unpleasant or unwelcome 

o could happen or harm or damage 

 Software/Apps

o Multiple systems

o Information display

• Sign-on issues

• Don’t talk to each other

 Information

o Flow of information

o Timing—when do I get information

o Amount of information—too little/too much

o Delivery mechanism

• Physical

• Electronic
67

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

(b) Final Code Book

Complete Code Book

Codes and Sub-codes Code Operationalization

Change This can be about technology, about policy/procedures, rules for behavior, laws, tasks; anything that refers to if/how things have shifted or not over the 

course of a participant’s career

Communication This refers to examples of when information is passed from one entity to another, or when a flow of information is needed but not necessarily there; For 

example, “I need to talk to my partner”; this is not a specific identification of information or technology

Context of Work Tasks related to what is done as part of the job

Stress/Overload Physical, cognitive, or emotional expressions of anxiety, tension, or feeling overwhelmed

Risk/Safety Situation involving exposure to danger; harm or loss

Relationships The sense of community developed among individuals or groups of people, a connection, association, or involvement, including relationships present 

within a discipline, between disciplines, or with the public

Frustration An expression of annoyance, because of inability to change or achieve something

Information Data, evidence, or intelligence related to an incident or to work environment/situation

Control Entity who has the ability/responsibility to act or pass on information

Delivery mechanism Physical (paper, evidence, objects, or other artifacts) or Face to Face

Operational environment This can refer to the station, the department, the leadership, the city/state; anything that’s larger than just the user (we)

Problems Identification of issues identified by participants related to doing their jobs

Technology Issues with technology

People Issues with people

Information Issues with information (in getting, receiving, or producing information; situations where there was too little or too much information)

Policies/Procedures Issues with formal or informal rules and operating processes and procedures for how things should be, have been, or are being done

Rules/Politics Formal or informal guidelines that directly or indirectly govern the work, expectations, and/or environments of first responders

Budget/purchasing Considerations related to funding and/or procurement

Priority/Influence Related to priorities of the administration (e.g., station, local government) 

Policies/Procedures Formal rules and operating processes for how things operate

Unspoken rules for behavior Informal understandings of how things should be done (for example: radio discipline)

Technology Devices utilized by first responders to do their jobs or as part of their daily tasks

Reliance on technology Situations when responders don’t know what to do without the technology or when it’s not available (either when it breaks or is not appropriate to use)

Positives about/with technology Benefits and affirmative views of using technology

Training Initial and/or ongoing preparation and practice of job-relevant skills

User characteristics Participant related demographics, or identification of demographic pieces related to other work colleagues 

Pride Feelings of dignity about their work, work environment, and/or work organization

Job commitment/satisfaction Expressions of how participants love what they do or dedication to their work

Generation gap Real or perceived differences due to age

Knowledge/experience/skills Discipline relevant understandings and abilities related to their work

Wish List Things (funding, information, processes, technology, devices, or equipment) that would facilitate first responders’ job.
68

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Appendix D: User-Identified Technology Opportunities and Needs

Technology Opportunities Participant Quote Exemplars

Interoperability We have all this availability of all this technology, but it doesn't communicate with each other, and it transposes information 

differently. (FF-R-019)

Currently we have, just on an incident we have three systems that capture data for us. That's our dispatch system, our CAD, 

computer-aided dispatch. We have an infer system. Which is just as the in-first reports. And we have a PCR System, a patient 

contact report system. In our current system, none of them talk... (FF-S-023)

So, bigger picture now with our incident management team, is one thing we struggle with is when we go to-- I've got my 

800 radio, but when we go to [location redacted], we go on wildland fires, we work with different federal agencies, I can't 

talk to them. So locally, we do pretty good, but when we get outsiders coming, or we go to the outside, all bets are off. (FFS-036)

That's a little bit challenging because they don't have the same radio system we have so the communication-- you would 

have to go through-- I would have to call the office for you to find-- or dispatch center, and have them relay the message... 

(FF-U-045)

So, interoperability is a big deal. Being able to travel outside the range of your radio system is a big deal. Especially now

digital radio systems. It's not like the old days of, you can go as far as the antennae will reach. Once you're outside of the 

foot [inaudible] radio system, you're stuck. We're seeing more and more that, while we have things like P25 protocol that's 

supposed to keep everything interoperable, it's still not completely interoperable. I think the whole public safety LTE is 

huge, but not just for data but also for voice. (EMS-U-001)

[about how forms do not auto-fill] it’s frustrating and especially when they’re trying to get us to finish our reports and get 

back to the service from the hospital as quickly as possible. It’s like they want us to get all this done real quick, but they 

don’t want to provide us the tools or can have them configured so that we can do it quickly. (EMS-U-017)

If there was a way that I could-- some way of kind of-- if it was a big emergency-type situation of-- kind of like an all-call, 

all law enforcement in the area. Because even here in Austin, we have constables, marshals, sheriffs, state troopers, police,

and we don't communicate. Rare is it that-- the only time I've ever had communications with a state trooper or a deputy is if 

a call that they're working-- if I had to go help them for whatever reason, or if it was a pursuit, if a pursuit came through our 

area. But it took a lot of finagling. You have to kind of figure out what channel they're on, and it's just kind of a hassle. (LEU-003)
69

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

From a software perspective, I am tired of having a new sandbox for every single thing that I do. Our RMS doesn't really 

speak very well to our CAD. So again, maybe-- it's easier to explain this way, I think. If I am going to take a call and I need 

to write a report, I'm going to run the person on the way to the call. But that never makes its way into RMS. So I'm going to

type them into my CAD, even though it's on the same computer. I'm going to then-- I'm proficient. So I alt-tab between the 

screens. But some officers click the bar at the bottom. So they click over, they type the first name. If they can remember the 

whole thing, then they click back, look at the middle name, click back. And it's a long process. And we duplicate work... So 

I would like to see an integration between all those separate systems that make it so I'm not repeating the same work over 

and over and over again, giving me more time to go out and do what I'm supposed to do, which is take calls. (LE-U-006)

So that is a glaring example of why that report writing system, in terms of the technology, we couldn't even search a name. 

We would have to go to a second or third system before you could search that second or third system. And if it's not something 

you do on a daily basis-- now we've got five different systems that we've got to use and check and it just gets overwhelming 

with all the passwords and all the stuff that we've got to utilize. (LE-S-033)

With firefighters and EMS is virtually impossible. And it's vice versa. It's virtually impossible for them to talk to us. It's 

very, very slow and very, very convoluted, because what we do is we get on the radio and we call our dispatcher. That 

dispatcher is one dispatcher for each district channel. And then, that dispatcher sends a message from their computer to the 

fire rescue dispatcher for that geographical area. And then, that person either contacts their-- either answers the question or 

has to ask their firefighter or EMS person whatever we're asking. (LE-U-037)

I think my biggest gripes are that e-ticketing machine and just the fact that it's not well thought-out for the application. I 

don't think there's any reason why it couldn't be done on the phone that I already carry or the computer that's already in the 

car. So integrating technology with stuff that we already have, that we already carry. Because when I'm on patrol, I carry 30

extra pounds of stuff, which doesn't count the two bags which are probably 30-pounds each of stuff that I keep in the car. So 

adding more stuff to all my stuff is more weight and redundant. So I think finding ways to use what we already carry... (LER-018)

Reliability and connectivity So technology with radios, technology with calling on the phone, taking pictures, using thermal imaging cameras. Computers 

help us in staffing and doing reports and just, the more administrative stuff. Right now I find, kind of, a roadblock on the 

network part of it. So we're linked into a network, but as soon as I leave my desk, now I've lost my ability to operate 

administratively as a battalion chief. (FF-U-001)

We have the [name redacted] MDTs, but I think we would call it a failed technology. Because it relies on [company name 

redacted] to communicate, it just doesn't work. We spend more time wasting time trying to keep that thing working than we 

do doing our job. (FF-R-019)

I would have to say probably in the last ten to 15 years, the introduction of the mobile data terminal computers became 

prevalent. Where instead of getting on the radio you'd push a button responding. And when you get on scene, you push a 

button that you're on scene. But the platform for that delivery failed at the dispatch center. The failure rate of communication 

and system failures and software crashes was predominant. (FF-S-031)
70

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Reliability is always an issue. And that can be attributed to-- you might be in an area where you just don't get a good signal. 

A good mobile signal. So some of our apparatus, they don't always get their calls on the [tablet] but they'll get it on the [cell 

phone], which is interesting. (FF-S-033)

Absolutely technology has gotten in the way on certain incidents and some of our operations... Obviously, when a lot of 

these mobile data computers have come about the coverage was not that great. The computers would turn off just going 

down the road. A lot of the communication from those computers to a cell tower would be horrific... (EMS-S-014)

I know we have issues with WiFi every once in a while. If I'm on the WiFi of the computer and then I drive to the hospital 

and now I'm inside the hospital writing my report and I'm on the hospital's WiFi and I go to leave, there is a space in between 

where I'm on neither network until I get away from the hospital. And I've had reports just get lost. They end up in a cloud, 

so to speak, somewhere but it's that interface of trying to get stuff to connect. (EMS-S-015)

It's just like, "This shouldn't be this hard! How can it be?" It's like, "Oh, well, the cell is fighting with the network connection." 

Reports go missing and the staff gets yelled at, and they're like, "Where is this report?" ... I wrote it. It wouldn't download. 

It was 3:00 in the morning. I got frustrated. I just shut it down. Or they will type all kinds of information in their report and 

they'll hit download and it'll just, poof... Yeah, not often. But how many times does it take to do that before you park that 

laptop underneath the rear wheels of an ambulance and say, "I don't know what happened to it." I mean, technology can 

create terrorists, and by that, I mean internal terrorists. If you frustrate people enough, they'll find a way not to use your 

system. (EMS-R-008)

The one that really irks people is they made it so that you can't download anything to a local mobile device. So you have to 

be in continuous contact with the internet in order for it to function. And, of course, when you need stuff like that the most, 

when you're trying to move maps and stuff around, is the big incident at the football game and the cell sites are hopelessly 

oversaturated and you lose connectivity, and all of a sudden you can't rely on it anymore because you couldn't preload that 

information onto your device. That's the really big one that gets us there. (EMS-U-003)

And then the same thing for the cars and internet stuff. You know, it's okay but it's spotty sometimes. Different areas of town 

you lose reception, so then you lose communication. (LE-R-001)

I think most of the communication, besides reception-wise and just being able to reach, is device issues with the radio 

malfunctioning, or the officer not plugging it in to charge the battery, or stuff like that. But, as far as radio stuff goes, I think 

reception is the biggest thing. As far as cell phones go, I can see a problem in bandwidth. As far as, we're working at a 

[university name redacted] football game, while there's a concert going on right across the street, everyone's texting, and 

then - I don't know - somebody blows up something. Everyone's texting. Everyone's calling. There's an obvious issue there. 

(LE-U-004)

Faulty equipment. Coverage issues, even with police radios, even with cell phones. When I say coverage issues, you can 

walk into a building that's concrete, you're not going to get out. Metal, you're not going to get your signal out there. If you 

walk into a basement area, your communication's cut off. (LE-U-012)
71

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

But there are certain buildings that are real thick concrete or parking garages that the radios just don't go through. Cell phones 

just don't go through. So whatever you're doing down there, you wrap it up and then you go upstairs and talk about it... (LER-018)

The only other thing I would say is we use-- the program we use to run license plates through the state of [state name 

redacted], that seems to go down quite frequently. And so you can't run a tag or you can't run a person because this computer

system is down on the state end, not on-- there's nothing our dispatcher can do. That actually seems to have gone down more 

frequently in the last five years than it used to. (LE-S-037)

Accountability and location Well, if you're down right here, and I come into this room and let's say you're two stories up, or whatever, we have certain 

techniques and strategies to try to find you by listening, going in that direction. It was a training issue, we gave them the

[product name redacted] to just see how it would work. They went in and tried to find and ran-- because it still points to you 

even if there's a wall in between us. And they got caught up in, I know the direction, but if they hadn't used it at all, they 

would've used just basically a rope, done a right-hand search pattern, and they would've kept going. They wouldn't have just 

been so focused on it. (FF-U-001)

And that information would be transferred onto a device that the incident commander could say, "Oh, there's firefighter Joan.

She's on the 10th floor of this building." And we don't have that technology now. And I'm sure there's probably somebody 

that's working on it, or it's probably military grade. But from an accountability perspective, somebody gets turned around in

a building and they're lost, I'd like to be able to say, "They're right there," and we don't have that. (FF-U-014)

Well, the video stuff is always nice to be able to have, just that where-are-they kind of a tracking, keeping accountability. 

It's like all these things come with just privacy issues too, though. We're trying to figure out how to balance. (FF-R-019)

I'm trying to think if there's any way that they could have a map of where fire fighters are that we could have access to. I 

don't know. You don't want to have additional equipment to carry, but if they have a-- we have thermal imaging cameras 

where we can see-- if I show it right at you, I would be able to see your outline because you have different heat than the 

room. I wonder if they could make a second screen on that, that track people that were working in that incident, so while I'm 

doing a search, I know that there are three fire fighters in that room and there's a fire fighter above me. But I have no idea 

how they would actually do that, but that would be pretty cool. (FF-S-039)

There's a lot of rescue stuff for down firefighters. It would be great to have location devices on firefighters' hats so that I can 

see, "I have two in the basement right now and there's supposed to be only two. Good. I have three on the second floor, and 

there's supposed to be five. Where are your other two people? Hey, there's a mayday in the basement." And, "Okay. It looks 

like I have this engine in the basement, and they must be calling the mayday." It'd be great to have a-- and again, that's that 

screen. It'd be good to have just a regular house layout. (FF-S-041)

Being able to track a patient from the time they call 911 until the time the first responder gets there with their patient tracking, 

until the time the ambulance gets there, we take them to the ER, they call a helicopter to fly them to another hospital, and to 

have all of that be one seamless patient record. Right now, there's no way to do that. (EMS-U-001)
72

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Maybe something along the lines that patient tracking because that's a good tool. Doesn't get used a lot though. I think 

something that would be an automatic download to the Red Cross. If we had victims, multiple victims from an incident-- on 

our MRU, once we had their name and information, if we could tap a drop-down menu and say Red Cross or whatever, then 

that information would go right to their databank. And they would know where that person is. And the reason why we would 

notify them is if we didn't have-- if it was like a disaster situation, you know? (EMS-U-009)

So I like to-- especially if it's a hot call, I like to kind of get as much as I can, as soon as I can before I get there. I like to 

know who's responding, how far away they are, their approximate arrival time for when I get there, traffic. (LE-U-003)

We have a guy who died in the woods, and we went to find him in the middle of the night. There are probably 12 to 15 

different paths to get to this particular transient camp, and we had cops everywhere. And if one of my cops had fallen, had 

broken a leg, had set on a booby trap, or had just gotten lost, how am I going to find them? And there are solutions out there. 

Google's got a great one that allows you to kind of track each other via an app. And that's good if you've got a cell phone 

tower, but I would definitely want something like that personally, so I can make sure that everybody is okay if things were 

to happen. (LE-U-005)

And back when I started, I could listen to the radio and on a Friday night, where we have 25 guys working, I could tell you 

exactly where everybody was in the city. As we've become more and more dependent on computers, I can't do that anymore. 

Which I'm doubting that anybody here can do that anymore, which kind of makes it hard for me to understand why we don't 

use more the technology, instead of using the radios. Because the radio, like I said, the bandwidth is such that we can get 

busy, and I have to make traffic stops where I cannot call out on the radio because I can handle the stop and be done before 

they're done yammering on about something. (LE-S-016)

[about tracking device and tracking suspect] And then I have to wait to get on the air, and by the time we find out that the 

tracker has stopped, we now block off the roadway, but by then, the person is already long gone. We don't realize that 

because we think it's immediate information, which it's not. So speeding up technology. I mean, as fast as we can... (LE-S021)

In a foot chase, when you're chasing somebody. It would be really nice if a dispatcher could just GPS and see where you're 

going. Instead of you worrying about calling it all out all the time. You've got to run, you've got all this stuff, and you're like, 

"I'm going left. I'm going right. I'm turning right. Southbound here and northbound here," and sometimes you don't even 

know what streets you're on. You're running. Could you imagine if you didn't have to do that, and you could have your hands 

free and just focus on chasing after this guy? And the dispatcher would be like, “All right, northbound, southbound.” Because 

whatever direction the police officer's running, then that's the definite direction that the offender's going. So the police 

officer's almost like a trail, a marker, a trail marker, a GPS trail marker behind the offender. (LE-U-023)

I mean most of it's just been the difficulty of learning a new system. Like he said with our pre-plans. Everybody got used to 

one thing and then we switched it. And then that didn't really work, so we switched it again. (FF-S-018)
73

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Maintenance, technical 

support and training

[about radio coverage issues] I guess there are some fixes. You can put a repeater on every chief's buggy that will also take 

that direct channel and put it into a repeater system that way everybody to hear it that way. That requires infrastructure, 

investment, and installation, and so forth, and money, so. (FF-U-016)

They set up programming, and then we have to go through and touch every radio with a programming. We have to touch 

each console with programming. So it's a pretty heady and very time-consuming process. So we don't usually do like, if one 

person wants to change or if one little thing wants to change we don't do much. We wait, get a big change together, and go 

out. (FF-S-023)

So there's not much in the way of training on new technology, or certainly no incident for motivation for us to try to reach 

out to the newest, latest and greatest because of those reasons, that reliability and resistance. (FF-S-032)

Because end up having this tablet, well, someone's got to run it. Before you used to have a wooden board with a piece of 

paper on it and you could quickly jot down notes. Or you didn't have boxes that had to be populated to lock a record and 

have a tablet you had to keep track of, and have connectivity to it. (FF-S-035)

We're in the process of upgrading our mobile computers, our patient care computers to newer versions, so they have to 

relearn it. Even if you've known the system for a while, even though we've kept the same company, it's still a new program. 

You're going to have to relearn the whole thing. So that may frustrate some people. (EMS-U-010)

But a lot of that, I think, it still seems to be just general configuration issues that could be changed, but just hasn't been done 

very well. And how much of that configuration can be done by the department themselves and how much requires the 

software vendor to go and change the programming, I'm not sure either, but. (EMS-U-017)

My experience in most software companies, if it's a big install, they'll come out and they might spend a half a day or a day 

with you and they're like, “Here you go, good luck, it's all yours.” And then as you use it, you go, “Okay, so how does this 

work, how does that work?” And this is not my full-time job, I've got things to do. (EMS-R-008)

And then we're all issued new helmets and vests for active shooter type situations. Well, soon as you put this additional layer 

of body armor on, it covers all the stuff up. And everyone's like, "How do I talk? How do I rearrange my stuff now?" And 

as I'm trying to say, you should always have an earpiece... So then we started looking at the shoulder mics and everything 

else, and because it's fairly new and we've only had a few trainings wearing all this, people are realizing you're going to have 

to rearrange stuff to maintain those communications. And then even putting these helmets that are not very comfortable. Just 

learning to work with all the new equipment that's out. (LE-R-019)

And because of government contracts and because of training and implementation, we constantly stay so far behind the 

technological curve that I don't know that we'll ever get to that pie in the sky because the T&E, the safety development, the 

safety committees, all that sort of stuff that has to take place, puts you two years constantly behind the curve. But the 

technology is there. The fingerprints are a good example of that, where we have fingerprint readers. Again, but the software 

is not the swiftest of software and by the time someone who's sitting behind a desk makes the decision, you're years and 

months ahead. (LE-S-033)
74

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Video is video. And video takes up space, so it's a huge space hogger. So what it's going to do is that eventually you're going 

to have places to put that data. And if you maintain your own servers, that's going to be a problem down the road. Probably 

sooner than later because the cameras are-- all your offices have them now. Plus, you got your cameras coming in from the 

city, your neighborhood cameras, your Homeland cameras. So all the cameras that you own, that's all coming-- so that video 

has to be stored. (LE-U-035)

Organizational Policies and 

administration

It doesn't restrict the use of cell phones. There's definitely some rules about personal use of cellphones, both personal use of 

personal phones while at work and then personal use of department cell phones. It is allowed. But there's no expectation of 

privacy or exemption. And then once again, if you're conducting business with a personal cell phone, it is subject to 

disclosure as well, so. (FF-S-035)

There's various procedures and things that need to be followed to change anything, and that can be very technical. And 

there's a whole lot of people who are in charge of this part, and then a whole lot of people that are in this part and getting 

everyone to meet on the same page. That can take years. And culture is a hard thing to change. Some of it is just a cost. Our 

[ruggedized laptops - brand redacted] are 6 or 7 thousand dollars new. The new tablets are certainly not cheap. That's an 

enormous cost when you have 35 ambulances that you need to put at $50,000 monitor in. And so some of its budgetary

constraints. (EMS-U-004)

If it's a personal device, I can see issues in basically just what the officer's outlook on it is. “This is my device. I don't want 

to take a picture of a crime scene with my cell phone. I don't want that saved on my phone. If I'm now taking pictures of a 

crime scene, can my whole phone be subpoenaed? Are they going to see all of my text messages? This is none of their 

business. This is my personal cell phone.” So I can see-- now none of that can actually happen if they know the law, they 

can only subpoena the actual business content on your phone. But not a lot of people know that. (LE-U-004)

I had my department email routed to my phone, and there was some kind of a disclaimer. And it said basically, "We're going 

to be able to access your phone." They figure, "If we're going to use the Internet, we're going to be able to access your entire 

contacts of your phone if we want." Which it was like, "Oh, man, that kind of sucks." My partner went off of it after that. 

He was like, "Man, I'm going to have to not get my email on my phone anymore." So now, he took, literally, 10 steps back 

because of that. (LE-U-023)

Current Technology Needs Participant Quote Exemplars

Better solutions for 

microphones and cords –

e.g., microphones: clarity, 

feedback, noise reduction; 

The only way it's a hindrance is if the person you're next to, usually it's your officer that's going to be talking on the radio, 

if they talk on the radio and you're right next to them, you're going to get feedback. So, some officers will address that in the 

morning by saying either, “Keep your volume down or keep your radio off until you need it.” They'll say, “Set your channel 

that we're going to and just leave your radio off. Unless you're in trouble or something, you can just turn the volume on and 

you'll already be on the right channel.” (FF-U-010)
75

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

cords: melting in high heat, 

need cordless solution

I think that the development of Bluetooth wireless technology for clear, better communication built into your air pack would 

be fabulous. And it needs to be bombproof, bulletproof, and so there can't be any loss of communication in smoke, heat, and 

all the other things that go along with it... If you listen to any of my tapes from my fires that I get, I would bet-- I ask 30 to 

40 percent of the transmissions to repeat. Repeat what you just said. Yeah. Some of it is because radios are turned up and 

you get feedback when they go to transmit, and I get that feedback sound. But a lot of it is people that just are not comfortable 

speaking on the radio. And that's all fine until you get that one call that you missed where somebody's calling for help. (FFU-014)

And it's got to be functional. I mean, it's great that we have mics, but mics don't work. It's got to integrate better with our 

masks. It's got to be clearer. There's nothing worse than talking through a mic when you're wearing an air mask. (FF-R-019)

The mic in the fire service has become kind of a big issue. We're pretty early adapters at Arvada. We tried a Bluetooth 

system. And the problem with a Bluetooth system is it has to pair every time you turn it on. And it doesn't always pair. And 

then you're trying to smash the button to make it pair. And so we got rid of it...that's why the big push was for the in-mask 

communication. But then it had the Bluetooth pairing problem, and we abandoned it. And then we went to this radio, which 

has a microphone on the back that's supposed to do noise canceling, but it works 50/50. (FF-S-022)

[about earpiece] The problem that we found is, as far as just one, there isn't one solution that fits all. So we're walking around 

like this, with just nothing else. I may be able to use my earpiece in here and it may stay in fine. But if I go into the firefighting 

mode where I have to put in a hood over myself and I have to put on the SCBA mask with straps, that same mechanism may 

just not be able to stay in the ear or something like that... I may go onto a hazardous materials response, where we get into 

the big moon suits, the self-encapsulated whatnot. They've got a helmet and whatnot and your arms are in gloves, you can't 

really reach so you're kind of doing this kind of stuff... We'll keep the radio in a holster on the inside, but as far as the audio 

stuff, we've tried conductive mics, either on the throat or on the head. We've tried hands-free stuff, but we just have not 

found any one solution that meets all of those needs. (FF-U-030)

So there is some limit with the radio, as far as the communication aspect of-- especially when you're in a fire, when

somebody's running a chainsaw and different things, that makes it very difficult to hear out of a mic that's not in your kind

of your locale, so to speak. So that has its limitations, as well as the cord can sometimes get grabbed or caught. But they 

seem to kind of be getting, to some degree, smaller than what I first started with. We call them bricks because they were 

probably about that big. About that tall. (FF-S-034)

So when you have a mask on and you're inside your building, we recently got the wire earpiece, kind of like a Secret Service 

agent, if you want to call that. But you've got to remember to put that on before you put a mask and helmet on, because once 

all that stuff's on, you can't get it back in without taking it off. So now you're not just listening to a lapel mic - which you 

can miss a lot of things in the heat of battle, if you want to call it that - that thing's squawking away. You don't realize that 

you're being called. (FF-S-035)
76

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Wires are bad because when I got out on a building fire, I've got a lot of stuff to be doing: getting my gear on, figuring out 

where we're going, figuring out what we're going to do when we get there. If I've got to be plugging in a whole bunch of 

wires, it's probably not going to happen.... And even if it doesn't entangle me, for me just to damage it inadvertently because 

I get it snagged and then I pull away and I cut the wire or pull it out of the port it's plugged into to or pull the whatever it's 

connected to off of wherever it's supposed to be. Just all sorts of things. (FF-S-040)

Where one of them's[sic] cord burnt through and he had priority on the channel and nobody could talk, nobody could talk 

over him until the key out time timed out. (FF-U-042)

So we were having an issue with our microphones. They weren't as clear, so he actually got us better mics for our radios, 

and they were way clearer. And we also, for a while, we actually went to this Scott mask that had that clip-in mic that you 

could-- hands-free. We didn't like them because the Bluetooth was messed up, so we went away from them. (EMS-R-002)

Because the back of the ambulance is loud, so the driver up front will just hear all the static and background noise from the

road, driving down the road. But I mean, you can manually turn it on and use it, but it's easier to just yell back there. And if 

you need to talk to your partner, it's effective communication front to back. (EMS-S-006)

The only thing I can think of is the radio-- the wire that comes from the microphone to your radio. I mean, we had a guy 

almost get choked out by that. I never wore one. I had a earpiece that went under my shirt, and then into my [inaudible] for 

that, basically for that exact reason, and so I could hear it better. I could hear better with it right here, as opposed to right 

here. And so that if I'm talking to someone, and they say, “Hey, he's wanted for such-and-such,” he doesn't hear that. Only 

I hear that. (LE-U-004)

Currently, we have a single one that just stuffs in your ear, and everybody is deaf in the ear they use it in now because they 

have to turn it up so dang loud. People that work downtown, they all wear earpieces and they can still never hear anything. 

So there's no way of something working for both. (LE-U-005)

It would be awesome to have that cordless opposed to a long cord that tends to either get caught in something or it can 

theoretically be used as a weapon against you, strangled with.... but quite frequently, we run into it getting pulled off your 

uniform shirt, or stretched, or gets caught on something where a Bluetooth-affixed microphone would be really nice or even 

a better headset system. (LE-S-037)

Critical communication 

devices should be the most 

affordable – e.g., radios, cell 

phones can be less expensive 

and more ubiquitous

A lot of technological solutions exist in the current fire service if you can pay for them. And I say this as you don't have to 

pay for them. So a lot of times, a lot of the technology needs - before I get to the pie in the sky - of most American fire 

service members is just the state-of-the-art stuff that whatever company is already making. Just it costs 10 grand a member, 

and they're not going to buy it, right? They have things like thermal imaging cameras that can check heat. Well, they make 

them now where it can be embedded within your SCBA mask, so you don't have to carry a camera. It's like Terminator 

vision, right? So those kinds of things actually do exist. They're just incredibly cost prohibitive. (FF-U-012)

Buying a radio is cheap, but changing the repeater and all of the other stuff that goes along with it is very expensive. (FF-U014)
77

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

It has to be affordable, and that's the challenge. Of course, they're loosely related. I mean, there are companies out there that 

sell all this stuff, but it's never achievable for us. We'll never be able to spend $10,000 on a radio.... right now, I mean, our 

radios are costing almost 4 grand for radio. And that's why we have older radios because we can't afford the new stuff. (FFR-019)

Because you got districts in this county, like us, who are pretty well funded. You get districts in this county, like [name 

redacted], they are completely volunteer. Their budget is, I mean-- we give them our used equipment because they need it. 

They have no money to spend on anything, so how are you going to apply technology evenly across even as small an area 

as our county and make sure that it benefits everybody? (EMS-R-008)

There's not a budget for it in our department. If you're, I believe, a second lieutenant and above, they get cell phones. 

Everyone else just has to use their personal cell phone.... it's really kind of hard to do the job now without your cell phone. 

(LE-U-003)

[about their radios stay on one channel] The cop is in the middle of a pursuit, and he's chasing somebody on foot. He's not 

going to take two seconds, because now he has to try to find that switch to go over. It would be a lot easier if the dispatcher 

just hits the button and it patches it through to the [transportation agency name redacted] dispatcher, but that takes money, 

the technology is there, it just costs so much. (LE-U-010)

Well, in technology-based is nothing talks to each other. And if you want it to talk to it-- if you want program A to talk to 

program B, A and B is going to have their hand out for a monetary supplement to give you the patch that they've already 

created or to create a patch. So that's frustrating. (LE-R-017)

We have one of those. One of those vehicles assigned to each precinct and it's called automated license plate reader... Not 

every vehicle. Some of the parking enforcement officers have those as well, but I have one in each precinct. I would love to 

get more. They're fantastic. That's just a cost. I mean, they're very expensive... Everybody has a portable radio. At this point, 

I would love to buy officers smart phones, but I don't have the funding for it. So right now the only communication device 

that the department supplies is the radio... And then for me, it's just going to be finding the money to get the technology to 

the officers - of tablets, of cell phones, things like that. Our department's trying to get larger. We've actually gotten the 

authorization to hire up to 200 more officers. (LE-U-029)

Longer Battery life And I'll say this, the more integrated it is into our protective equipment that it's not so ancillary or exterior that it bogs us 

down, the more-- because I really am asking somebody to be a triathlete. And all these extra clothes and anything that's 

cumbersome, wires or anything, is going to be a hazard. And so the more streamlined we can make it, lighter, faster, longer 

battery life, all those things, protection. (FF-U-001)

Battery technology is always a limitation for any rescue service because-- how great is that radio? It's terrific. How long's 

that battery last? 45 minutes. Okay, so it's not that terrific, right? I could get you from Mars once, and then the battery dies, 

right? And that's with our thermal imagers, with our radios, with our rescue tools. You name it. We are limited by the distance 

of a power cord or the distance of battery... So I think battery life is the new future towards, how do we fix some of those 

problems you're-- if the batteries lasted longer on anything you have, everything would be better. (FF-U-012)
78

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Some of the downsides is obviously it's got a battery. So the battery's got a certain amount of life to it. So there'll be times, 

if you're using it multiple times during the day, if you haven't had the opportunity to maybe swap out a fresh battery, you 

can get to points where it starts balking on you, indicating that it's getting low. So that's a negative because there's a set level 

of power. And obviously as that battery works down, the less power you've got, the less actual transmission power you're 

getting to send your signal out. That's all based upon battery too. So that's a downside, as far as signal strength. (FF-U-034)

But you're talking about a battery that you just added potentially another two inches to the bottom of it. So I'm already 

carrying this radio that's like this. Now do I want to add it-- we're going back in technology where we're carrying around 

bricks because we're adding... I mean, we haven't even gotten to, I think, well, I know, our full potential on our portable 

radios. [Company name redacted] is pushing out different things now where the radios can receive picture messages and 

things like that, and we're not using any of that technology yet. We're not there in a firmware aspect or any of that. So when 

you start pushing data like that, what's that going to do to the life of the batteries? (FF-U-043)

It's an enormous computer on wheels... The electric load in these ambulances is just nuts. I mean, they are just maxed out 

right now on power capability... We have this, that, and the other thing that's all battery operated. It's all plugged in. When 

an ambulance is not running, it's on a shoreline plug. And if you forget to plug your ambulance in for an hour, it's dead. 

(EMS-R-008)

Even telling some of the guys, going, “You really should have an earpiece in. I know you don't want to, and you never had 

before, and it hasn't been an issue, but it's going to be at some point.” As they talk about, well, Bluetooth, and I think, “That's 

just more batteries to charge.” And batteries are always an issue now. Making sure the batteries, after so long getting rotated 

out, so they can go a full shift. Everyone knows the dead or low battery chirp and what that means. So I do have some 

concern as all these new technologies come out and everything's taking more juice. (LE-R-019)

GPS Location tracking –

e.g., provide exact locations 

(including z-axis) of 

responders, units, callers, and 

building occupants.

So I think that my number one thing would be that, either through the use of our radios or some device, that we can get 

accurate physical accountability on the fire ground. So it's not just the X, Y coordinate. I want the X, Y, Z coordinate. (FFU-014)

I can tell you that for large-scale events, from the command side of things, I would like to see or have some type of a 

[inaudible] saying, “Okay, you know what? These ambulances are coming from this direction and these ambulances are 

coming from this direction. Where can I place them so that they don't running into each other or direct them?”... Some kind 

of GPS locator. I know it exists, it's just that we don't have it. (EMS-U-010)

In a foot chase, when you're chasing somebody. It would be really nice if a dispatcher could just GPS and see where you're 

going. Instead of you worrying about calling it all out all the time.... Could you imagine if you didn't have to do that, and 

you could have your hands free and just focus on chasing after this guy? ... So the police officer's almost like a trail, a 

marker, a trail marker, a GPS trail marker behind the offender.... I would like to be able to see where the rest of your guys 

are at too. It would be nice to see that. If I'm here, where are my other guys at? And maybe we could kind of position them 

better and coordinate better. (LE-U-023)
79

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Real-time information for 

situational awareness – e.g., 

provide visual information to 

augment audio communication 

from radios and cell phones 

I would just love to see a manageable picture from RP [reporting person] to end user, a way to-- a picture's worth a 

thousand words. Let's get those pictures out there. And I know dispatchers might not want to see that or whatever. We 

spent 62 minutes yesterday chasing drywall dust from our [location redacted] line, but we have to take it seriously... And 

it's not just as easy as looking across the mountain or going to the same vantage point. In fact, we have to verify and 

double-verify that that isn't going to go big bad. So a picture's worth a thousand words, and I think that's the other thing. 

Get it out there. (FF-R-019)

It would be great to know what the building looks like, or what the streets look like, at the time of the incident. If we had 

access to cameras on the apparatus, or even our dispatch center, they could say, “What I'm seeing from this location is no 

smoke or I see a fully-involved structure.” (FF-S-023)

So there's tons of information out there that we just aren't capturing, or that's already captured and is just not accessible. So 

on the medical side of the calls, so we don't really have any access to any of the patients' history, or any medical 

information that is maybe there, but not readily accessible... A better access to those records would help us make better 

decisions in the field. And some of that's already captured, it's just not--available to us in a way...So the ability to have 

access to the information about where I'm responding and who I'm responding to. So access to that patient information, the 

access to the information about the building that I'm going to be into and how that could affect our safety or our tactics, or 

how that information could be utilized to help us predictively plan where our calls may be to help us. I think we would 

actually end up-- our job to try to help people and save people, really ultimately is most effective probably done in the 

preventative means... But we can do more of it with data, so I think ultimately, for me, it's that access to better data and 

utilizing that to make better decisions and keep everybody safer and all that kind of stuff. How to collect it, how to store it, 

how to utilize it, disseminate it in a way that is standardized and useful. (FF-S-032)

We've got a better system now that would manage that information. But still, there's never going to be a perfect thing. Never

a perfect system in terms of always having good, real-time intel. (FF-S-035)

So some type of a drone with a camera. And before we go into this area, what do we have there? Is there something that can 

be relayed back to us and say, “Okay, you have three cars in this type of an accident. Here's a picture of where you can come

in, it's easier for you to come in.” (EMS-U-010)

So we have in-car cameras. Right? And the technology is there for us to be able to stream what is going on in our car to our 

supervisors or anyone else, but we-- I think, mainly due to bandwidth, we do not have that feature turned on. But that would 

be something that would be kind of nice. If you were going to a call, to be able to look to see what your partner is currently 

seeing would be very helpful. So you can have an idea of maybe where I should come in from or if he's in trouble, what's 

going on or I look at the suspect before you even get there in case he bolts and just starts to run. (LE-U-003)
80

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

[about potential uses of drones] You're not going somewhere blind. You're not going into an alley blind. You're not going 

into-- we have a lot of areas that are-- I grew up in a very bad neighborhood by the [location redacted]. A lot of that area is 

just grass and dirt, no street signs, trees. The criminals know the area better than we do. I grew up in that neighborhood, so 

I know it. But you're going to go into alleys. You're going to go into areas that are-- it's almost like a lot of the projects in 

[city name redacted], they're built on hills, which is a sniper's advantage. So we have to trek up these hills, when the suspect 

already has an advantage over us just from the hike. There's areas that are dark. We don't know... Yes, information. Yes, 

recon. I would love to get drones, but that's not-- I'll be retired before that ever happens... Even ground drones. I was thinking 

about the BB-8 character from Star Wars. So there's a guy with a gun in the building, and I get that little ball with the camera 

and just send him in there. (LE-U-013)

I would like that GPS. I would like the situational awareness type of thing. I would like to have some type of dynamic 

information dissemination technology if it exists. (LE-U-023)

[about potential uses of drones] Well, searching that for a lost person is pretty difficult, but you can put a drone up. 

Especially with a forward-looking infrared, you might be able to find them. I wouldn't be a big fan of them for routine 

patrolling and that kind of stuff. It is a little too big brotherish[sic] for me. But for a barricade, being able to put a drone up 

to get a view of the house to purchase barricade in, or looking for lost people in like [location redacted] or something, I 

think they'd be phenomenal... But for specific reasons, for specific incidents or reasons I think they'd be great. But again, 

very sensitive over here. Any kind of surveillance technology is something that gets people's attention right away. (LE-U029)

More details. But I don't get that on a bike. So police work's kind of changed. A lot of times, bike officers will see things

that don't fit and we will get on radio and we'll ask, “Hey, can you run that license plate for me?” And then when they run 

the license plate, we ask them, “Is there any RMS on it?” which is Report Management System. So is there any prior thing 

associated with that plate? But our 911 center won't give us that information over the air anymore... I can't look at 

anything historical, and radio won't give me that information. So in a car, you have all that. And a lot of times, you-- well, 

not a lot of times-- I think now almost every time, officers are-- before they're heading to the call, unless it's a priority one 

call, which is a really-- what I'd call hot call, they're going to stop and they're going to look. They're going to look to see 

what's happened, whether there's a name associated. They're going to see if we've handled that person before. And that's 

actually really good information. It's officer safety information. (LE-U-031)

Futuristic Technology Needs Participant Quote Exemplars

I can get some kind of heads up information that the IC could send from something inside. If we can't communicate well that 

way, can I get stuff that would come up on a small heads-up display? (FF-S-017)
81

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

Heads Up Display (HUD) –

e.g., provide environment and 

operational information

So I've got the thermal imager attached to my face piece, so where I look, I've got a little heads-up display right in front of 

me. So I can either look out through my face piece and just see what's in the environment or I can glance down at that HUD 

and look through the thermal imager if the smoke is too thick for me to be able to see through otherwise. A HUD for the 

radio would not be a bad thing either. To put a display that mirrors the display on my radio so I can see what my coverage 

is, I can see what talk group I'm on. I can see all the stuff. (FF-S-40)

If you can have your information put into-- like vehicles now, they have their odometers, pedometers on the glass on the 

dashboard. That would be something nice for the officers, because now your eyesight is not looking down towards the 

computer. Everything is visual on the screen, transparent to you, in front of you while you're driving. (LE-U-012)

Advanced medical 

equipment – e.g., facilitate 

faster diagnosis and to support 

patient care on the spot 

So if you could find a way to confirm in a more rapid and more efficient way without having to wait until they get to the 

emergency room to have a CT, but something like that could be done in a field setting and not waiting.... If you could 

definitively identify those things in the field and then begin that treatment right there. And so you start that treatment at the 

patient's side.... There's all kinds of stuff. Even something as simple as a wireless EKG. But detection stuff-- I mean, we've 

seen it through the years. I mean we moved to the cardiac monitors that we have now.... the end title, the pulse ox, the EKG, 

the defibrillation, the cardioversion, the pacing. I mean it's all in one, so who knows where it's going to end up. But anything 

that would make the medics' lives and the patients' outcomes become more effective, where we can do stuff in the field, 

obviously. I mean, even shooting an x-ray or something like that. And then having the training and ability to even set and 

cast or something right there, so you're avoiding having to take people into the ER... (EMS-U-001)

Also, those rural agencies, as is the case with the CPR machine, the less people you have available, the more equipment you 

need to take up the slack. Denver, we have so many ambulances, so many fire stations, so many cops. There's generally all

these extra bodies to help you lift this, pull that, push on that. So for better or for worse, it works for our system to not have 

some of that equipment. (EMS-U-004)

It would be great to transmit our patient data to the hospitals so that when we get there they're already registered and have 

an armband, and they were in the system. It would also be nice for us to see some of the data points from the hospitals. 

(EMS-S-016)

Self-driving cars – e.g., allow 

first responders to attend to 

more important information 

rather than focusing on driving

Self-driving ambulance is an interesting concept. And the reason why is because right now you rely on one individual in the 

back. And if you're treating, even if you're just treating one patient, not multiple patients, but a single patient, but a multisystem injured or ill patient that requires more than maybe one brain and more than one set of hands in order to better manage 

the treatment side of that patient's modalities, then you're doing it by yourself... But if you have the ability for-- take me to 

this medical facility and both of those skilled medical professionals can be in the back managing that patient. (EMS-U-001)

I'd like to be able to fly my car into work to be honest with you. It seems that should've happened a long time ago because 

you've got your limitations to, obviously, how much space you have for highway. I always felt maybe it would be nice if 

there was something I can come up with that was somewhere in between a regular automobile and a helicopter or a plane 

that was safe and kind of lift, take yourself to work and not have to follow behind every other person in congestion. (EMSU-011)
82

8216 /10.6028/NIST.IR. https://doi.org This publication is available free of charge from: 

A Google car driving us somewhere 80, 90 miles an hour. Yeah, that'd be great. I think that's fantastic. With the ability to 

take over when we need to because sometimes we need to violate traffic laws or drive over a median or a curb. That would 

be great. (LE-U-005)

Smart Buildings – e.g., 

provide smarter intelligence 

(e.g., occupant number and 

locations) or to put its own fire 

out

Building telematics thing where we're talking about pushing out the building information to the user in the firetruck so I can 

see what zone and stuff it is, where the smoke detector is activated, on what zone are the sprinkler systems activated.... I'm 

actually getting a heads-up display with that data as I'm walking through the building and maybe even providing context in 

terms of location within the building. So the building is smart enough to know, hey, I'm walking down this hallway and the 

zone that you're going to is up here around the corner to the left. And that heads-up display is telling me, hey, I'll go down 

the hallway, took a left here, you're in the zone. That's the sprinkler valve that's activated or the zone that's activated. There's 

the smoke detector that's activated.... Now, the challenge with that stuff is providing it in a way that is useful but it doesn't 

saturate the user. Because if you provide too much stuff, the user gets too distracted and they forget what they're supposed 

to doing and it actually becomes detrimental instead of helpful. (FF-S-040)

But having access or having the victim having access to some sort of security system, this is kind of big world stuff maybe 

doesn't-- but having access, to be able to hit a button that gives a layout of the house or provides that to-- I mean, that's just 

kind of cool. That's on the TV step. But I mean, hey, it probably exists somewhere. But having a layout, knowing where they 

are, giving us an idea when we go there, we have a better view. But somehow maybe they can give us access with the push 

of a button to their security cameras.... Yeah. I mean, having us be able to gain access to their surveillance when we get 

there or if we're sent. Because what if it's a hostage situation where-- or a barricaded subject. We're not going in right away. 

We're going to stage out front and come up with a plan. What if we have access to that? Can they give us-- it's some sort of 

emergency button on their remote or on their phone that says, “Okay. Access can be granted to—" and then I don't know. 

Probably, it's feasible. So it might already exist. I don't know, so. (LE-S-027)