What a Force Multiplier Really Looks Like in Investigations

Back to all articles

Plenty of vendors call their software a force multiplier. Usually they mean faster workflows, better visibility, or fewer clicks. Fine. But for chiefs, lieutenants, and detectives, the real question is more practical: what changes when the next shift starts?

In one department we recently analyzed, detectives were spending about 4,050 hours every quarter reviewing digital evidence. Phones, downloads, reports, screenshots, message threads, media files, the usual pile. Their fully loaded detective cost came out to roughly $96 per hour once you include salary, benefits, vehicle, gear, and overhead.

When you run those numbers through a case management and evidence review workflow that cuts review time in half, you do not get a vague productivity story. You get 2,025 hours back per quarter. That is what force multiplier means in operational terms.

ShieldView is built to do exactly that. Across digital investigations, agencies commonly see review and case prep move about 50 percent faster. In this department’s case, that translated into the equivalent of nearly four additional detectives, without hiring anyone.

Force multiplier is not a slogan, it is recovered investigative capacity

Law enforcement teams hear the term all the time. It sounds good, but it gets used so loosely that it stops meaning much. A better way to think about it is this: a force multiplier gives your current staff more usable hours for real police work.

Not administrative busywork. Not another dashboard. Actual investigative capacity.

Digital evidence is where a lot of that capacity gets trapped. A detective may spend hours sorting through exports, opening files one by one, cross-referencing names, building timelines, and pulling out the few items that matter to the case. None of that work is optional. It has to be done, and it has to be done carefully. But it is also where agencies lose a huge amount of time.

That is why speed matters, but only when it comes with structure. If a platform helps investigators find relevant communication faster, organize it into a case narrative, and get reports out with less manual rework, you are not just making life easier. You are creating room for more follow-up, more interviews, more warrant work, and faster case movement.

In the department example above, a 50 percent reduction in review time produced a very concrete outcome:

• 4,050 hours spent on digital evidence review each quarter
• 2,025 hours returned each quarter with ShieldView
• 8,100 hours returned annually
• $777,600 in annual value based on a $96 fully loaded hourly rate

That is what people usually mean when they say force multiplier. The problem is they rarely show the math.

What the numbers looked like for one department

Here is the full picture from this department’s proposal, the same way a lieutenant might need to explain it to a chief.

Year one pricing came out to $105,000. That included $80,000 for the platform and $25,000 for onboarding to get the team up and running. Years two and three dropped to $80,000 flat.

There were also some real concessions made to help the agency move. The per-investigator rate was reduced to $4,000 per year, down from $5,000. The tech audit fee of $5,000 was waived. The training fee of $2,500 was waived too.

That matters, but pricing is not the most important part of the story. The real question is whether the spend creates measurable return inside the investigations unit.

In this case, it did.

Using the department’s own numbers, the annual value of time returned was projected at $777,600. After platform cost, the estimated net gain was $697,600. That works out to a 9.7x return per dollar, meaning every dollar spent returns about $9.70 in detective time.

That is a useful way to frame software for command staff. Not as a new cost center, but as a reallocation of already-paid labor. Agencies are already spending the money. The question is whether that money is tied up in slow review work or freed up for investigations that move.

There is also a staffing reality here that every department understands. Hiring is slow. Budgets are tight. Experienced investigators are hard to replace. If technology can create the equivalent of several more detectives by reducing time spent on repetitive review, that is not abstract efficiency. It is operational relief.

Why the audit and local support matter as much as the software

One thing that gets overlooked in these conversations is how many agencies are already paying for overlapping tools. A unit may have one system for extraction, another for storage, another for review, and then a collection of manual workarounds for reporting and case prep. Over time, those layers become normal, even when they are expensive and inefficient.

That is why the tech audit matters so much.

Even when it is provided at no charge, it is often one of the most valuable parts of the process. Sitting down with an agency and going line by line through current tools, subscription costs, workflows, and gaps gives leadership a clearer picture of what is actually being used and what can be retired. In every department we have worked with, there have been opportunities to cut duplicate spend once ShieldView was in place.

For chiefs and city leaders, that changes the budget conversation. Instead of asking whether this is a net new cost, they can ask a better question: how much of this can be offset by simplifying the current stack and reducing the labor tied to it?

The other thing that matters is implementation. Agencies do not need software dropped on them with a login and a support email. They need a team that will sit with investigators, understand their case flow, and build around the way they actually work.

That local piece matters more than people admit. When support is nearby, training is easier. Adoption is better. Feedback loops are shorter. Problems get fixed faster. And command staff can trust that the platform is not just installed, it is being shaped around real investigative work.

There is also a practical budget point here. Sometimes a chief is ready to move, but the budget cycle is not. In those cases, a letter of intent or a phased approach can help bridge the gap without losing momentum. That kind of flexibility is not about sales. It is about matching procurement reality to operational need.

What chiefs should take from this

If you are evaluating case management or digital investigation tools, ignore the hype and ask for three things.

First, ask how many hours your team is spending right now on digital evidence review and case prep. If you do not know that number, estimate it. You cannot judge impact without a baseline.

Second, convert those hours into fully loaded labor cost. Salary alone does not tell the story. Benefits, vehicles, gear, and support costs matter.

Third, ask what percentage of that time can realistically be cut without sacrificing quality. If the answer is around 50 percent, and the workflow supports that claim, you are no longer talking about software features. You are talking about recovered investigative capacity.

That is what a force multiplier actually means. Not a flashy promise. Not a bigger stack of tools. More casework done by the team you already have.

The takeaway is simple: if a platform can return thousands of detective hours a year, that return should be measured like staffing, because in practice that is what it affects. Chiefs do not need another tech pitch. They need a clear view of time back, dollars back, and what that means for case clearance and workload. Start there.