Based on the framework by Kennedy and Van Brunschot (2009).
Why Execution Gets Harder as Agencies Get Smarter
Modern policing does not suffer from a lack of intelligence. It suffers from a lack of visibility into execution.
Command staff have access to sophisticated data, analyst products, and carefully developed operational plans. Priorities are set, resources are allocated, and expectations are clear.
And yet, weeks later, leadership is often left asking the same fundamental questions:
- Which strategies actually made it to the field?
- What changed at the locations we prioritized?
- What did officers encounter that never showed up in the data?
These questions are not a reflection of weak leadership. They are symptoms of a structural blind spot: As agencies become more data-driven, execution becomes harder to see.
Most intelligence-led systems were designed to describe problems, not to manage the lifecycle of the response. Intelligence is briefed in meetings, but execution happens across shifts, units, and partner agencies—often with zero real-time feedback loops.
The result is operational drag. Instead of driving action, leaders are left piecing together anecdotal updates to determine if strategies are being carried out and if conditions are actually improving.
The ACTION Risk Analysis Model addresses this gap. It treats intelligence not as a static report, but as a continuous operational workflow—turning assessment into action, and action into refinement.
To illustrate how this works in practice, consider a common example:
A chronic problem property generating repeated calls for disorder, theft, and disturbances — flagged repeatedly in analysis, discussed often in meetings, but slow to improve.
A — Assess Vulnerabilities, Exposure, and Threats
Risk-based policing starts with shared situational awareness.
Before deploying resources, agencies need a clear picture of where vulnerabilities exist and how exposure to risk is changing over time. This goes beyond counting incidents. It includes environmental conditions, compliance issues, repeat calls, and officer observations that signal whether a location is stabilizing or deteriorating.
In our example, the problem property appears repeatedly in calls-for-service data. Officers report loitering, open alcohol use, and frequent disturbances — but much of that context lives informally, not in a system leadership can easily see.
Where friction emerges
Assessment is often fragmented. Important observations live in notebooks, email threads, or brief conversations and never make it into a shared operational picture.
What improves the process
Structured intake creates consistency. When patrol officers, supervisors, and partners capture observations in a common format tied to a location, leadership gains visibility into risk conditions without waiting for formal reporting cycles.
What this provides to leadership
A clearer, more current understanding of where attention is needed now, based on conditions and activity — not just historical incident counts.
How to implement
Define a simple, standardized way for officers and supervisors to document risk observations linked to locations or problems. Start small. Consistency matters more than volume.
C — Create Connections Through Analysis
Data becomes intelligence only when it explains relationships.
Analysis should connect vulnerabilities to outcomes and clarify why certain locations persist as problems despite repeated responses. This step transforms information into direction.
In the problem property example, analysis moves beyond “high calls” to identify contributing conditions: poor lighting, unresolved code violations, nearby attractors, and inconsistent follow-through across shifts.
Where friction emerges
Data silos limit context. Analysts may see crime patterns but lack access to code enforcement activity, nuisance complaints, or environmental factors that explain persistence.
What improves the process
Connecting datasets allows analysts to frame problems around conditions, not just incidents. This leads to clearer explanations and more precise recommendations.
What this provides to leadership
Confidence that strategies are targeting underlying drivers rather than symptoms.
How to implement
For priority locations, require analysis to explicitly identify contributing conditions alongside incident trends. Make causal explanation a standard deliverable, not an optional add-on.
T — Task Strategies to Respond and Prevent
Strategy only matters if it is operationalized.
Once analysis identifies an approach — enforcement, environmental change, compliance action, or partner engagement — responsibility must be clearly assigned.
For the problem property, this might include directed patrol, follow-up with code enforcement, property owner engagement, and coordination with licensing or housing agencies.
Where friction emerges
Strategies are discussed but not formally tasked. Execution depends on memory, informal follow-up, or individual initiative.
What improves the process
Explicit tasking removes ambiguity. When strategies are converted into defined actions with owners and timelines, execution becomes visible.
What this provides to leadership
Assurance that strategic decisions are being carried out without constant check-ins or micromanagement.
How to implement
At the conclusion of command meetings, require that each approved strategy results in at least one documented task with a named owner and review date.
I — Integrate Intelligence and Information
Execution should generate new intelligence.
Observations made during tasks are often the most valuable source of insight into whether conditions are changing. Officers on scene notice things data systems cannot.
At the problem property, officers may discover access points, management issues, or displacement patterns that alter the original strategy.
Where friction emerges
Information flows downward. Officers receive direction but lack a structured way to report findings back into the intelligence process.
What improves the process
Structured feedback loops capture outcomes, barriers, and unexpected conditions as tasks are completed.
What this provides to leadership
Continuity and institutional knowledge that persists across shifts and personnel changes.
How to implement
Require brief, structured task close-outs that capture what was observed, what changed, and what did not. Keep it concise and repeatable.
O — Optimize and Refine the Organization
Not every strategy will work as intended.
Optimization requires the ability to evaluate effectiveness and adjust accordingly. Without this, ineffective approaches persist due to habit or lack of visibility.
If conditions at the problem property are not improving, leadership needs to know why — quickly — and adjust before effort is wasted.
Where friction emerges
Without clear links between actions and outcomes, it becomes difficult to distinguish effort from impact.
What improves the process
Tracking strategies alongside outcomes allows leadership to identify what is working, what needs modification, and what should stop.
What this provides to leadership
Stronger justification for resource allocation and clearer guidance to the organization.
How to implement
Select one recurring strategy and formally review its impact over time. Use results to guide future decisions rather than tradition.
N — Notify Others and Build Risk Awareness
Many crime problems are shaped by factors outside direct police control.
Effective prevention depends on coordination with other city agencies and community partners. In the problem property example, sustainable improvement may require action by housing, licensing, or public works.
Where friction emerges
Collaboration often relies on informal communication and personal relationships, which can degrade over time.
What improves the process
Defined information-sharing channels allow partners to participate without exposing sensitive data or overwhelming them.
What this provides to leadership
A more distributed response to public safety problems, reducing pressure on patrol and enforcement resources.
How to implement
Begin with one partner agency and one shared problem. Define what information they need and what actions they can reasonably take, then formalize the process.
The Practical Value of the ACTION Model
The ACTION model builds on intelligence-led policing by closing the gap between analysis, execution, and organizational learning.
For command staff, its value is practical:
- Greater visibility into what happens between meetings
- Clearer accountability without micromanagement
- Faster adjustment when conditions change
- Better use of limited resources
Intelligence works best when it is not treated as an endpoint, but as part of a continuous operational cycle.
Where ActionHub Fits
Implementing the ACTION model requires structure — not more meetings, spreadsheets, or email threads.
ActionHub was built to support this exact workflow: tracking priority locations, tasking strategies, capturing field observations, integrating partner activity, and giving command staff real-time visibility into execution and outcomes.
It does not replace your analysts, meetings, or existing systems. It connects them — so intelligence leads to action, action leads to feedback, and leadership can see what is actually happening on the ground.
That is how good strategies stop stalling.
Explore ActionHub on your own at https://actionhub.simsi.com/. There are no sales calls and no obligation. Single-organization use is free, with licensing available if and when you decide to collaborate with partners.