> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.holdtraffic.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Stop Buying Dispatchers Another Screen - URL: https://www.holdtraffic.com/stop-buying-dispatchers-another-screen/ - Published: 2026-08-28T17:56:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-02T13:01:38.000Z - Description: More technology doesn’t always mean better operations. As 911 centers add more screens, systems, alerts, and data, maybe it’s time to ask a different question: Is this actually making the dispatcher’s job better? - Author: Justin Storch - Tags: 911dispatch, public safety communications, tech, AI Walk into a modern 911 communications center and count the monitors. Seriously. We've reached a point where some dispatch consoles look less like a workstation and more like mission control. Every one of those screens probably has a perfectly reasonable explanation for why it's there. CAD needs somewhere to live. Mapping needs screen space. The radio console has its own interface. Maybe there's another application providing better caller location. Somewhere else there's unit tracking, cameras, weather information, text-to-911, alarms, databases, dashboards, or any number of other systems. Then someone walks into a conference exhibit hall and discovers something new. *"You know what would be great?"* And somewhere, a dispatcher loses another six inches of desk space. Don't get me wrong. I love technology. LOVE IT! I'm fascinated by where technology is taking public safety communications. Better location data, NG911, improved mapping, system integration, real-time information, artificial intelligence—there are things becoming possible in 911 today that would have seemed incredible when I first sat down at a console. I want that technology. But I'm increasingly interested in a different question: **At what point does more information make it harder to find the information that actually matters?** ## Attention Is a Resource We talk constantly about resources in public safety communications. Staffing. Console positions. Radio channels. Call volume. Workload. But there's another resource we don't talk about nearly enough: **The dispatcher's attention.** And there's only so much of it available. Think about what's happening during a critical incident. A telecommunicator may be listening to a caller while simultaneously entering information into CAD. They're listening to radio traffic. They're watching unit statuses. They're reading updates from another dispatcher. They're anticipating what responding units are going to need next. Then something flashes. **DING.** Another application has information. Maybe it's important.....Maybe it isn't. But the dispatcher has to make that determination. Even ignoring something requires a tiny decision. Now multiply that across an entire shift. Alerts. ding Pop-ups. ding Messages. Ding Notifications. Ding Additional windows. DING Additional systems. DING Additional information competing for attention. We've given telecommunicators access to more information than at any point in the history of this profession. That's incredible. But access to information and situational awareness aren't necessarily the same thing. Sometimes more information creates better awareness. Sometimes it just creates more information. ## Every System Looks Great By Itself I've seen some impressive public safety technology. A vendor demonstrates a product and it's easy to immediately see the possibilities. Better caller information. Better mapping. Real-time video. Automatic transcription. AI-generated information. Responder locations. Additional databases. Another source of intelligence. And during the demonstration, it looks fantastic. There's just one problem. The product is usually being demonstrated **by itself**. Nobody is simultaneously answering a screaming 911 caller while an officer is transmitting a license plate, another unit is asking for a case number, a fire department is requesting another alarm, and someone across the room is trying to tell them something important. That's the environment where the technology actually has to work. A feature that looks incredibly useful while you're standing in an exhibit hall with a cup of coffee may feel very different when it becomes Application Number Twelve demanding someone's attention during a major incident. That's why I think we need to change the question. Instead of asking: **“What can this technology give our dispatchers?”** We should also ask: **“What does this technology require from our dispatchers?”** ## The George Lucas Problem There's a point where improving something can become adding things simply because we can. I think George Lucas demonstrated this better than almost anyone. When he went back to the original *Star Wars* movies and created the Special Editions, some of the changes were genuinely impressive. Technology allowed things to be cleaned up and expanded. Effects could be improved. Things that weren't possible when the movies were originally made suddenly became possible. And then there were some other decisions. Suddenly there were more creatures walking through scenes. More things moving in the background. More digital effects. And then Greedo shot first.....don't even get me started. The point is things were added to movies that had already worked pretty well for twenty years. Some of it made *Star Wars* better. Some of it just made *Star Wars* busier. I think communications centers can fall into the same trap. A new piece of technology becomes available and we immediately start thinking about what it can add. Another data source. Another dashboard. Another alert. Another map layer. Another window. Another screen. Individually, every one of those additions can probably be justified. But eventually we need to stop asking: **“What else can we add?”** And start asking: **“Is this actually making the operation better?”** Those aren't the same question. ## Solve a Problem Technology should solve an operational problem. That sounds obvious. I'm not convinced we always approach it that way. If the problem is poor caller location, let's find technology that improves caller location. If information is getting lost between systems, let's integrate them. If dispatchers are spending ridiculous amounts of time performing repetitive tasks that can safely be automated, let's automate them. If responders need information that we're struggling to provide quickly, let's figure out how technology can help deliver it. Start with the problem. Then find the technology. The danger comes when we reverse that. We find an impressive piece of technology and then start searching for reasons we need it. Or another agency bought it. Or someone saw it at a conference. Or the demonstration looked incredible. That's not necessarily modernization. Sometimes it's just putting another CGI creature in the background. And eventually someone still has to watch the movie. ## Six Screens Aren't Situational Awareness There's something visually impressive about a communications center filled with monitors. It looks advanced. It photographs well. Walk someone through the room and all those glowing screens communicate something: **Look at all the information we have.** But the goal isn't to have information. The goal is to make information **useful**. That's an important distinction. The dispatcher doesn't necessarily need every piece of available information displayed in front of them at all times. They need the **right information at the right moment**. That's a much harder technology problem. And I think it's where the next generation of public safety technology has the potential to become genuinely transformative. ## Maybe Good AI Is Quiet Artificial intelligence is ~~probably~~ going to play a significant role in the future of public safety communications. There are plenty of conversations happening about what AI is doing and might do in 911. Transcription. Translation. Quality assurance. Call processing assistance. Data analysis. Training. Decision support. And probably applications we haven't seriously considered yet. But I'm not particularly interested in putting an **AI window on Monitor Number Seven** just so we can say our center uses artificial intelligence. The most valuable AI may eventually be technology the dispatcher barely notices. Instead of showing them more information, maybe it helps determine which information matters. Instead of creating another alert, maybe it helps suppress the twenty alerts that don't matter so the one that does gets noticed. Instead of requiring the telecommunicator to search three systems, maybe the relevant information simply appears when it's needed. That's the kind of technology I'm interested in. Technology that gives attention back instead of demanding more of it. ## Put Dispatchers in the Conversation There's another relatively simple way to figure out whether technology is helping dispatchers. Ask them. Not after we've purchased it. Before. The people who will actually use the technology should have meaningful input into how it's selected, configured, and implemented. That doesn't mean every purchasing decision becomes a committee vote. Leadership still has to make decisions. But the person working a radio for twelve hours may notice something about a workflow that someone sitting in an administrative office won't. That's not resistance to change. That's operational experience. Before we add something to a console, I think we should be asking questions like: What problem are we trying to solve? Who actually needs this information? When do they need it? Does this replace something or simply add something? Can it integrate with systems we already use? How many steps does it add? How many does it eliminate? What alerts does it generate? What happens when those alerts occur during a critical incident? And perhaps most importantly: **Does this make the telecommunicator's job easier, or have we simply given them another thing to manage?** ## Modern Doesn't Mean More None of this is an argument against technology. Quite the opposite. Public safety communications needs to modernize. I want better mapping. I want better location information. I want better integration. I want smarter systems. I want AI where it genuinely improves the operation. I want telecommunicators to have access to information we couldn't have dreamed of fifteen years ago. But modernization shouldn't be measured by how many monitors we can fit on a console. And buying technology isn't the same thing as improving operations. **Modernization should make the dispatcher's job better, not just make the console look more modern.** The future of 911 absolutely involves more technology. More data is coming whether we're ready for it or not. Our challenge isn't figuring out how to put all of that information in front of a dispatcher. It's figuring out how to put the **right information in front of them at the right moment—and let everything else stay out of the way.** Before we buy another screen, another dashboard, or another application, maybe we should make sure we're actually solving a problem. And not just adding another CGI creature to the background.