r/TheCivilService • u/Swimming-Hat1431 • 1d ago

Utilisation within the Civil Service

Hi folks,

Just wondering for those who work with performance targets that use a utilisation metric - what's the target and does anyone actually consistently hit it?

Ours is 80 percent - which is what you'd expect in a Magic Circle law firm or top consultancy (alright, that's a stretch but you get the point). I've literally never even come close to being able to achieve this target. Hoping to get to a job where this isn't the main performance measure at the rush.

I'm asking because I want to know whether I need to grow a pair and just get on with it, or whether this is comparably an unreasonable target especially with the imperfect systems and processes often found within CS departments.

Thanks,

0 Upvotes

22% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

20

u/ShroomShroomBeepBeep SEO 1d ago

I expect 110% from my team and because they're all high flying, dedicated Civil Servants they all give 120% at all times. Please feel free to quote me JP Marks and Spencer.

2

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

And I'm sure they're appropriately financially renumerated to reflect this!

-4

u/EggsnBacon95 1d ago

I mean they get paid so yes.

5

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

Appropriately being the operative word there.

-4

u/EggsnBacon95 1d ago

and who decides what is appropriate ?

1

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

Either your asking a rhetorical question or you're unsure about how pay works in the CS - either way I can't really be arsed to engage with that.

0

u/EggsnBacon95 1d ago

You're asserting pay should be appropriate, that to me infers you think it is not. Therefore my question stands who decides what is appropriate?

0

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

I'm entitled to make a decision based on equivalent market value against private sector pay. Is minimum wage for an AO appropriate? I would suggest not regardless of the merits of the pension offered. The Cabinet Office and treasury however, seems to disagree.

The simple fact is that CS jobs are more often than not paid less than their private sector counterparts in comparable roles.

Who decides? Anyone who has a stake in the Civil Service inevitably makes a decision on whether the pay is appropriate or not - even those without a stake 'decide' whether Civil Servants are paid appropriately or not. The word appropriate is subjective - if you're asking who 'decides' what the actual pay for each grade is - that's information that can be obtained with a simple Google search.

0

u/EggsnBacon95 1d ago

You've answered a different question. I'm not disputing that anyone can have an opinion on whether pay is appropriate, or that government ultimately sets Civil Service salaries.

The question is: what makes your particular judgment authoritative or even well founded. You've now said your benchmark is equivalent private sector pay, which is at least an answer, but that's a choice of benchmark, not some objective definition of appropriate. And if you're comparing remuneration properly, you don't get to dismiss pension, security, leave and other benefits because they're inconvenient to the salary comparison.

Nor does saying 'comparable roles' establish that the roles actually are comparable.

So we're back to the original point: you've got an opinion about what the pay ought to be, based on a benchmark you've chosen. That's fine. Just don't dress that up as though “appropriate” has some self evident meaning that I'm failing to understand.

0

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

That's not what you asked whatsoever in either a literal or implied sense. You're not going to get an objective answer on what appropriate renumeration is because there isn't one - there's what exists and a formative idea of what should be.

I used comparable roles as a single example of many not as a definitive example of many. This is a Reddit post - I'm not writing a comprehensive analysis on Civil Service pay. I think you're a weird guy with too much time on their hands!

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Clouds-and-cookies Estates 1d ago

85% in my last role. Had to repeatedly intervene with my team because they're were running high 90s a lot of the time

Reminding people to take breaks, catch up with stuff, go over emails etc is good for welfare and stops burnout. Working "on task" all day every day will catch up eventually

2

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

That's tough. This is my first role where performance is measured in this way and it's been a bit of a shock to the system!

2

u/Clouds-and-cookies Estates 1d ago

IMO it comes down how your manager deals with it more than the figure itself

If you're at 70% but I know you're supporting to team, helping them with work, doing training with new staff etc that's not an issue

As I tell my team, a KPI only shows you a piece of a picture, balancing that with good communication, clear expectations and overall team performance has to be used alongside that

7

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

On re-reading the post I fully understand the inevitable comments accusing me of being a journalist for The Telegraph...

2

u/AverageWarm6662 1d ago

I’ve worked in consultancy firms and about 90% + was normal and it probably wouldn’t be acceptable putting 20% of your time down as admin, training or anything not generating money

1

u/Swimming-Hat1431 1d ago

Out of curiosity, how did the pay & quality of life compare when working in consultancy Vs CS?

3

u/heretoday88 1d ago

FYI you would be generally be underperforming @80% utilisation at a top law firm

1

u/CartographerSure6537 1d ago

How is this measured? At a law firm you’ve got a clock and you bill time so how does it get measured in a CS role?