Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Forensic Operating Models and Their Relationship to Doctrine, Service Delivery and Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Driving Forensic Innovation in the 21st Century

  • 24 Accesses

Abstract

Forensic service providers (FSPs) are required to innovate and, we would argue, have an obligation to in order to ensure ongoing relevance, impact and trust. The economic and doctrinal forensic operating model they employ will influence the extent to which innovation is valued and supported by the FSP and by its key stakeholders. The operating model will also determine whether the focus of the innovation is solely on driving efficiency or the development of new forensic capabilities (or innovative uses of existing ones) to respond to new and emerging threats. Models that support the integration of the FSP within its operating environment are more likely to support the latter, while those more removed or beholden to economic drivers are more likely to support the former.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Private Goods are defined as Rival (One’s consumption of goods and services affects the availability to others: individual preferences determine output and consumption) and Excludable (The owner of the good or service can decide not to share). Examples include a glass of wine or finite DNA analysis capacity.

  2. 2.

    Public Goods are defined as Non-Rival (Shared consumption that does not appreciably change with the addition of consumers; individual preferences are not considered) and Non-Excludable (Access to service is universal). Example: National defense.

References

  1. Roux, C., Bucht, R., Crispino, F., De Forest, P., Lennard, C., Margot, P., Miranda, M. D., NicDaeid, N., Ribaux, O., & Ross, A. (2022). The Sydney declaration–Revisiting the essence of forensic science through its fundamental principles. Forensic Science International, 332, 111182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Catoggio, D., & Pearman, C. (2018). Australasian forensic science summit 2016: Business models towards 2030. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50(3), 282–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Walsh, S. J. (2023). Forensic science in the criminal justice system: The good, the bad and the academy. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55(3), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2023.2200913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bedford, K. (2011). Forensic science service provider models—Is there a ‘best’ option? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2–3), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2010.541498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Darroch, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2013). Intelligence-led policing: A comparative analysis of organizational factors influencing innovation uptake. Police Quarterly, 16(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611112467411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Allen, R. Y. (2002). Assessing the impediments to organizational change: A view of community policing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(6), 511–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2006). Police innovation and crime prevention: Lessons learned from police research over the past 20 years. This review draws upon material available in David L Weisburd and Anthony A Braga (Eds.).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sofronoff, W. (2022). Commission of inquiry into forensic DNA testing in Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McAndrew, W. P. (2012). Are forensic science services club goods? An analysis of the optimal forensic science service delivery model. Forensic Science Policy & Management, 3(4), 151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Maguire, C., Houck, M. M., Williams, R., & Speaker, P. J. (2012). Efficiency and the cost-effective delivery of forensic science services: Insourcing, outsourcing, and privatization. Forensic Science Policy & Management, 3(2), 62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McAndrew, W. P. (2012). Is privatization inevitable for forensic science laboratories? Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 3(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2012.720641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Speaker, P. J. (2013). Forensic science service provider models: Data-driven support for better delivery options. The Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 45(4), 398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Speaker, P. J. (2021). An independent evaluation of laboratory staffing needs: Launching the forensic laboratory workforce calculator. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 3, 100137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2021.100137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Koppl, R. (2005). How to improve forensic science. European Journal of Law and Economics, 20, 255–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Centres of Specialisation Framework: A Concept Paper. (2016). Australian New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Science. https://www.anzpaa.org.au/ArticleDocuments/676/Centres%20of%20Specialisation%20Framework%20-%20A%20Concept%20Paper.pdf.aspx. Accessed June 17, 2023.

  16. Amoako, E. N. (2020). The regulation of forensic science in England and Wales. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Northumbria at Newcastle (United Kingdom), England.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gallop, A., & Brown, J. (2014). The market future for forensic science services in England and Wales. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(3):254–264.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Budowle, B., Kayser, M., & Sajantila, A. (2011). The demise of the United Kingdom's forensic science service (FSS): Loss of world-leading engine of innovation and development in the forensic sciences (Vol. 2). BioMed Central.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bitzer, S. (2019). Forensic case coordination in Europe—Their role within 5 European institutes. Forensic Science International (Online), 300, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.04.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bitzer, S., Miranda, M. D., & Bucht, R. E. (2022). Forensic advisors: The missing link. Interdisciplinary Reviews Forensic Science, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1444

  21. Taylor, M. L. (2023). Designing the future of forensic science: Mêtis and forensic intelligence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2023.2218429

  22. Innes, M., & Sheptycki, J. W. E. (2004). From detection to disruption. International Criminal Justice Review, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/105756770401400101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Raymond, T., & Julian, R. (2015). Forensic intelligence in policing: Organisational and cultural change. The Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 47(4), 371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Forensic Intelligence Lexicon. (2022). Australian New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency National Institute of Forensic Science. https://www.anzpaa.org.au/ArticleDocuments/2304/Forensic%20Intelligence%20Lexicon%202022%20v1.PDF.aspx. Accessed July 8, 2023.

  25. Garvey, T., LaBerge, G., & Wartell, J. (2023). Forensic intelligence models: assessment of current practices in the United States and internationally. National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ross, A. (2015). Elements of a forensic intelligence model. The Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 47(1), 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Collins, M., Huttunen, J., Evans, I., & Robertson, J. (2007). Illicit drug profiling: The Australian experience. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Australian Customs Notice No. 2022/06: Electromagnetic Weapons. (2022). Australian Border Force. https://www.abf.gov.au/help-and-support-subsite/CustomsNotices/2022-06.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2023.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forensics Command, Australian Federal Police, Canberra, Australia

    Mark Tahtouh & Simon J. Walsh

Authors
  1. Mark Tahtouh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon J. Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Tahtouh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Biomolecular Sciences Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK

    Simona Francese

  2. Research and Innovation, foster+freeman, Evesham, UK

    Roberto S. P. King

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tahtouh, M., Walsh, S.J. (2024). A Review of Forensic Operating Models and Their Relationship to Doctrine, Service Delivery and Innovation. In: Francese, S., S. P. King, R. (eds) Driving Forensic Innovation in the 21st Century. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56556-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56556-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56555-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56556-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation