Making Effective Decisions:
Civil Service examples by grade

In my role processing benefit claims, I noticed that one claim type was being returned for missing evidence far more often than others, adding around two weeks to each case.

I reviewed 40 returned claims from the previous month and found that most were missing the same document, which our request letter did not clearly name. I compared three options: rewording the letter, adding a phone check before requesting evidence, or keeping the process and monitoring it. I weighed the cost, the time to introduce each, and whether any would disadvantage claimants who find phone calls difficult.

I recommended rewording the letter because it was quick, cheap and accessible to everyone, and proposed checking the following month’s returns to confirm it had worked. I wrote a short summary for my manager setting out the evidence, the options and my reasoning, and drafted the new wording with our guidance team so it met policy.

The revised letter went out the next month. Returns for missing evidence on those claims fell from 38% to 12%, and average processing time dropped by nine days.

I led the assessment process for a £2m community grant scheme when a late policy change meant around 60 applications no longer clearly met the eligibility criteria.

Rather than decide alone, I gathered evidence from three sources: legal advice on how the new rule applied, data on how many applicants were affected by region, and feedback from two partner organisations on what the change would mean for smaller charities. I asked my team to challenge my first draft, which led me to add an option I had missed: a short extension so affected applicants could resubmit.

I set out four options for the programme board, with the cost, delivery risk and impact on applicants of each. I recommended the resubmission window, even though it delayed awards by three weeks and was unpopular with some colleagues who wanted to keep to the original timetable. I explained the risk of legal challenge and the unfairness to smaller applicants if we simply rejected them.

The board approved my recommendation. Forty-one applicants resubmitted and 29 received funding, there were no appeals, and the approach was written into the guidance for the next funding round.

As the Grade 7 responsible for a public-facing online service, I had to decide whether to keep supporting an ageing case-management system through a peak period or bring forward its replacement, with incomplete data on the new system’s readiness.

I first clarified what mattered most to stakeholders: operations needed stability over the peak, finance needed to avoid a £400k extension to the old contract, and policy colleagues needed an audit trail for new legislation. I commissioned a two-week readiness review, compared incident data from both systems, and invited the delivery team and our commercial lead to challenge the evidence rather than simply confirm it.

The data showed the new system was ready for 80% of case types. I decided on a phased switch: moving that 80% before the peak and keeping the old system for the complex cases on a three-month extension rather than a year. I delegated the cut-over decisions to the service owner so they could be made quickly, and I defended the phased plan to the senior responsible owner when some wanted a single switch-over date.

The migration completed without a service outage, the shorter extension saved £290k, and the audit requirement was met in time for the legislation coming into force.