Making Effective Decisions Grade 6 Example — 500-Word Statement

SI was head of policy in a government arms-length body responsible for redesigning a £40m-a-year business support grant scheme. Ministers wanted a recommendation within ten weeks, but our consultation had closed with only 380 responses, skewed towards larger businesses, and the evaluation evidence on the old scheme was two years out of date. Waiting for better data was not an option because the scheme's legal authority expired that session.

TI owned the options appraisal and had to recommend one of three scheme designs to our board and sponsor department, being explicit about what we knew, what we did not, and how the design would cope with that uncertainty.

AMy judgement was that the biggest risk was not choosing the wrong option but pretending the evidence was stronger than it was, so I designed the appraisal around that. First, I separated fact from assumption. I had my analysts draw up an evidence matrix for each option, showing which claims rested on robust data, which on partial data, and which on judgement alone. Option one, expanding the existing universal scheme, scored well on deliverability but its benefits case relied entirely on the stale evaluation. Option two, targeting support at firms under ten employees, had strong theoretical backing but the consultation barely reached that group. Option three, a hybrid with targeted core funding plus a small universal pot, was untested anywhere. Second, I filled the worst gaps quickly rather than accepting them. I commissioned a rapid telephone survey of 200 micro-businesses through our trade body partners, which took three weeks and confirmed demand patterns the consultation had missed. Third, I ran sensitivity analysis on every option, testing how each performed if our take-up assumptions were 30% wrong in either direction. The hybrid proved most robust across the range, but I was wary of recommending an untested design on a £40m scheme. So I developed a fourth variant: adopt the hybrid, but phase it, launching the targeted element first with a formal review gate at nine months and pre-agreed criteria for continuing, adjusting or stopping. Before finalising the recommendation, I tested it with people who would challenge it honestly: our finance director on affordability, the sponsor department's analysts on the modelling, and a small panel of business representatives on operability. Each changed something specific, including a simpler application test that cut estimated admin costs by £1.8m a year. I presented the board with a two-page appraisal showing the evidence matrix, sensitivity results, the phased design and the explicit uncertainties, rather than a false single-point forecast.

RThe board and sponsor department approved the phased hybrid without requesting further analysis. Take-up in the first nine months ran 18% above the central forecast, admin costs came in £1.6m under the original scheme, and the review gate confirmed the design was working as intended. The National Audit Office later commended the appraisal's treatment of uncertainty in its lessons report, and the sponsor department reused my evidence-matrix format on two subsequent policy programmes.