Seeing the Big Picture at Grade 7 level

SAs Grade 7 head of a regulatory compliance team, a proposed efficiency programme planned to cut site visits by 30%. My management information showed that the cut would fall hardest on higher-risk operators, conflicting with the department's published harm-reduction priority and a National Audit Office recommendation that was still open.

TI needed to influence the efficiency design so savings were real without quietly weakening the risk-based model ministers had already endorsed in public.

AI commissioned a rapid risk stratification of the visit book, combining three years of enforcement outcomes with intelligence from partner agencies. I produced a short board paper that set the efficiency ask beside the harm-reduction objective and the open NAO recommendation, using plain language and one clear chart so non-specialists could see the trade-off. I ran a challenge session with finance, policy and the operations director, and I offered an alternative: reduce low-risk visits by 45% while protecting and slightly increasing high-risk coverage, funded by reallocating analytical effort rather than by adding headcount. I negotiated a pilot with three regions, agreed success measures in advance, and put a stop-go gate with the SCS sponsor so we could reverse course if harm indicators moved the wrong way. I also briefed the arm's-length body whose data we relied on so they were not surprised by the change in ask. When a minister's office queried why savings looked front-loaded, I explained the sequencing and the residual risk in writing, including what we were consciously not doing. I asked each SEO to rewrite their team objectives against the new stratification so incentives matched the board decision, and I published a one-page FAQ for inspectors to stop informal local reinterpretations. Beyond the immediate fix, I mapped stakeholders who would feel second-order effects, agreed how we would handle exceptions, and made sure finance and delivery saw the same assumptions. I checked progress against the measures we had agreed and adjusted the plan when leading indicators moved. I kept a short decision log so others could see why we chose this path and what we had ruled out. I briefed the people doing the work in plain language, including what would stop as well as what would start. I made sure the result could be evidenced with MI or feedback rather than relying on assertion alone. I invited a peer to challenge the approach before we locked it in, which improved the final design. I clarified owners and timescales so the change did not depend on informal goodwill alone.

RThe revised model delivered 28% visit-hour savings in year one while high-risk coverage rose by 8%. The NAO recommendation was closed on the strength of the new stratification, and the approach became the default for the next spending review efficiency pack.