Really sharp framing of the organiztional readiness problem. The shift from individual skill to system-level coordination is where most implementations stumble. I've watched a retail client deploy similar tech only to discover their escalation protocols were still built for the old model where one person owned detection and response. The gap betwene seeing and acting turned out to be a protocol issue, not a sensor one, which is exacly what this piece nails.
That gap between seeing and acting is really critical to understand if the tool (the AI-enabled camera) is going to support the outcome (a prevented attack). Thanks for highlighting that.
That gap can be a double-edged sword if it isn't acknowledged. It has stopped organizations (including those that had advance warning of an imminent threat) from acting. And it has led to poorly initiated responses in which the context around the observation wasn't communicated or articulated effectively.
But those are also really clearly scoped problems that an organization can address and, as a result, get the most out of these tools.
AI to accelerate threat detection is a positive innovation. The failure of human intelligence to process and act effectively on emerging threat data (your steps 2-4) remains a tough challenge. I wrote about that in relation to school violence here:
Baird - thanks for sharing the article. We agree on quite a bit when it comes to the failure to solve the problem of school violence.
When I think about the challenge you mention, I see three groups of people:
- Group 1. There are people in organizations who have actually addressed it, but we probably don't know about them because they choose not to talk about it. It is hard to KNOW if you got it right or not, so I understand the hesitation from actual practitioners to make claims here.
- Group 2. There are those who choose to ignore the threat and pretend like everything is fine (I'll come back to them in a second).
- Group 3. There are those who recognize they don't have the violence prevention and security capabilities they need, but don't know how to address them.
In most of my writing, I focus on that 3rd group because (to your point) learning how to effectively act on emerging threat data is tough, but not impossible. For the same reasons I'm not qualified to be a school principal, I can only hope that those who are, are seeking the support and guidance they need to build functioning violence prevention programs.
Because if we can, collectively, improve the performance of Group 3, the “leaders” in Group 2 who are choosing to put kids and their community at risk will only become more obvious and can be held accountable for choosing to not address this problem.
Great points Patrick. Glad you’re taking on these challenges.
Your Group 3 are the folks with the humility to recognize what they don’t know and seek to close the gap. I loved consulting with those folks! We got a lot done.
I’m a big fan of Atul Gawande’s book “The checklist manifesto” about reducing errors in high-stakes fields like aviation and surgery etc. One checklist item I always suggested that schools change is when a teacher perceives a threat of violence, don’t send it to the school counselor. Escalate it immediately to a Threat Assessment Team that includes the principal and counselor and other decision-makers. Assume the teacher is right until proven otherwise by thorough assessment. They usually are.
Really sharp framing of the organiztional readiness problem. The shift from individual skill to system-level coordination is where most implementations stumble. I've watched a retail client deploy similar tech only to discover their escalation protocols were still built for the old model where one person owned detection and response. The gap betwene seeing and acting turned out to be a protocol issue, not a sensor one, which is exacly what this piece nails.
That gap between seeing and acting is really critical to understand if the tool (the AI-enabled camera) is going to support the outcome (a prevented attack). Thanks for highlighting that.
That gap can be a double-edged sword if it isn't acknowledged. It has stopped organizations (including those that had advance warning of an imminent threat) from acting. And it has led to poorly initiated responses in which the context around the observation wasn't communicated or articulated effectively.
But those are also really clearly scoped problems that an organization can address and, as a result, get the most out of these tools.
Thanks for the comment.
AI to accelerate threat detection is a positive innovation. The failure of human intelligence to process and act effectively on emerging threat data (your steps 2-4) remains a tough challenge. I wrote about that in relation to school violence here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bairdbrightman/p/our-schools-should-be-safer-by-now?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Baird - thanks for sharing the article. We agree on quite a bit when it comes to the failure to solve the problem of school violence.
When I think about the challenge you mention, I see three groups of people:
- Group 1. There are people in organizations who have actually addressed it, but we probably don't know about them because they choose not to talk about it. It is hard to KNOW if you got it right or not, so I understand the hesitation from actual practitioners to make claims here.
- Group 2. There are those who choose to ignore the threat and pretend like everything is fine (I'll come back to them in a second).
- Group 3. There are those who recognize they don't have the violence prevention and security capabilities they need, but don't know how to address them.
In most of my writing, I focus on that 3rd group because (to your point) learning how to effectively act on emerging threat data is tough, but not impossible. For the same reasons I'm not qualified to be a school principal, I can only hope that those who are, are seeking the support and guidance they need to build functioning violence prevention programs.
Because if we can, collectively, improve the performance of Group 3, the “leaders” in Group 2 who are choosing to put kids and their community at risk will only become more obvious and can be held accountable for choosing to not address this problem.
Thanks again!
Great points Patrick. Glad you’re taking on these challenges.
Your Group 3 are the folks with the humility to recognize what they don’t know and seek to close the gap. I loved consulting with those folks! We got a lot done.
I’m a big fan of Atul Gawande’s book “The checklist manifesto” about reducing errors in high-stakes fields like aviation and surgery etc. One checklist item I always suggested that schools change is when a teacher perceives a threat of violence, don’t send it to the school counselor. Escalate it immediately to a Threat Assessment Team that includes the principal and counselor and other decision-makers. Assume the teacher is right until proven otherwise by thorough assessment. They usually are.