Forensic Plan and Policy Adherence

Forensic Plan and Policy Adherence

Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) are standard management practices with close relations but different implications. QA is relatively broad as it comprises all quality systems, while QC is a subset of its activities. Therefore, QA is defined as the methodologies and standards usually followed to manage quality. On the contrary, QC involves the mechanisms applied to ensure that the standards are strictly adhered to for the better quality of the deliverables. In simple terms, QA is the process of creating the outputs, while QC is all about verifying the results (Arthur, 2020). They operate interdependently and require close supervision for their effectiveness. In this case, QA and QC have to be conducted professionally to get a detailed report of the computer forensic products. The plan below will guide the investigator and the lab in getting the best results from the computer forensic investigations.

For a successful QA and QC, it is imperative to ascertain the presence of basic necessities prior to the beginning of the investigation. First, there must be a Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) to guide the entire process. QAM is a credible document that outlines the lab’s policies and the primary procedures that deserve to be followed in the entire process. It further features the scope of the quality management system, quality objectives, and the business process model of an organization. Besides, there must be an oversight from the Quality Manager (QM) as he is the primary party mandated with quality management roles. QM holds the autonomy and authority to commission the process. Meeting these minimum requirements paves the way for the subsequent steps.

During the QA, a series of events will be carried out with close observance of the pertinent standards. First, it is essential to understand the objectives of the process to remain focused on the entire course. Besides, it is vital to plan the test by laying down a series of well-designated actions in chronological order. Having a concise program is pivotal as it ensures that all key aspects of the QA procedures are checked. Generally, there must be well-structured Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to steer routine operations. The QM must propose to make the process result-oriented and prioritize transparency. Such an approach will increase the credibility and acceptability of the outcomes. QA in forensic investigations ought to be highly precise, as a minor mistake might lead to lifelong repercussions once presented in court.

Other QA observations include documentation, utilization of standard examination methodology, and peer reviews. The obtained digital evidence should be noted down for future reference. Skipping this stage may give rise to misinterpretation and unintended consequences in the long run. The standard examination methodology is a mechanism that fosters the comparison of the same test results from a different lab. It seeks to verify the validity of the investigation, but it is sparingly used only where applicable. The peer-review procedures involve a second review of forensic results by another expert (Geradts, 2017). The amalgamation of these events will collectively lead to a successful QA.

Each step in the forensic investigation must be aligned with stringent controls as a strategic way of maintaining the integrity of the digital evidence. In this instance, there must be a follow-up to ascertain that peer review processes have been conducted successfully to eliminate inaccurate findings. Besides, a vehement pursuit is carried out on documentation to ensure it complies with the forensic process. The quality of the featured evidence is subjected to rigorous administrative scrutiny to confirm the efficiency of the investigative process. Further verifications are usually done to validate that the report is complete, includes the case number and agency name, and is free from grammatical errors. In essence, most parts of the QC strive to appraise the preceding phase, QA.

Several protocols are applied in QC to strengthen the quality of forensic evidence. This concern is supported and addressed by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD). The agency rolls out lab accreditation programs as a strategic way of availing an impartial, objective, and independent system. ASCLD has stipulated 45 necessary standards, 91 essential standards, and 16 desirable standards as the fundamental approval basis for computer forensic labs. A lab must abide by 75% of the necessary standards, 100% of the essential standards, and at least 50% of the desirable standards (Infosec, 2018). Therefore, the investigator should consider whether the current lab is sufficient enough to support criminal investigations.

QC is a comprehensive process that stretches to assess the quality of QM and rule out incompetent individuals. The experts must have adequate training, education, and relevant experience to deliver their roles effectively. They must be certified and licensed to exercise in forensic labs. Some of the standard professional certifications include but are not limited to Certified Computer Examiner (CCE), Certified Forensic Computer Examiner (CFCE), and Global Information Assurance Certification Forensic Analyst (GCFA). It is worth noting that the requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another. Having proficient forensic experts will play a critical role in controlling the quality of outcomes presented in court.

In conclusion, these QA and QC measures will significantly aid in solving the computer forensic investigation problem. Forensic evidence is quite sensitive and requires supervision to ensure that the pertinent details are captured, documented, analyzed, and interpreted accordingly. The AB Investigative Services is highly advised to refer to this document before engaging in forensic affairs.

 References

Arthur, B. (2020). The Difference Between Quality Assurance and Quality Control. Dialog Information Technology.

Infosec, (2018). QA, Certification, and Accreditation in Computer Forensics.

Geradts, Z. (2017). Forensic Digital Evidence. In Forensic Evidence Management (pp. 141-150).

CRC Press.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

The state crime lab has contracted AB Investigative Services (ABIS) to prepare a forensic plan to ensure that current problems with computer forensic investigations are erased and training is provided.

An initial ABIS audit shows that many areas of the lab are not prepared to conduct extensive computer forensic evidence collection. You have been asked to prepare a set of recommendations on how to handle the following areas and related problems:

Forensic plan and policy adherence: How will the investigator and the lab ensure proper QA and QC over computer forensic products?