It’s quite plausible that in the upper echelons of DWP, the KPI is set very much as you suggest.
tim
1

Thanks Tim. Rationally, frontline staff should have in their individual performance agreements an objective something like “get decisions right” for which a performance indicator will be a high proportion upheld on Mandatory Reconsideration carried out by someone else. The Reconsiders’ objective should in turn be something like “get reconsiderations right” for which a performance indicator will be a high proportion upheld at the next stage i.e. on Appeal which again is carried out by someone else.

However, frontline staff are likely to have a range of objectives and these might well include (for some at least) identifying cases of error and fraud. For example, if the Error and Fraud programme has discovered that on average 5% of claims are dodgy, individual staff might have a performance indicator around the percentage of claims they identify as dodgy. If you don’t identify any (and thus never make an adverse decision) then you will not meet the objective.

That is where any incentive to make adverse decisions would creep in and it is precisely this possibility that makes 100% (or close to it) more appropriate than 80% …

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.