Intelligence and Policy Analysts
Collect and analyse information and data that supports planning and operations in organisations, and develop and analyse policies guiding the design, implementation and modification of government and commercial operations and programs.
A briefing due by morning
You are a policy analyst in a government department, writing advice for a senior decision maker about a program that will affect many people. It is Wednesday afternoon. A briefing on a local community program is due tomorrow morning. You still have people to consult, some gaps in the data and a boss with firm views.
Choose what you would do. Then see what happens. There are often good reasons for each choice.
We've been asked for our views on the changes, but we only got the paper this morning, and our members can't read it in a day. Is this consultation real, or just something you have to tick off?
Tell her the timing is fixed and her group can send comments if it has time, but that you cannot promise they will change anything
She sends a short comment, but her members feel unheard. Consultation that comes too late to change anything is a quiet way of closing the door.
Promise that every comment will be reflected in the final decision
Margot is thrilled. Then the decision goes a different way and she accuses the department of lying. You cannot promise outcomes you do not control.
Be honest about the timing, ask for her group's top concerns now, and arrange a longer conversation with her members afterwards
Margot gives you three clear concerns on the spot. Her group knows how its views will be used. Honest limits earn more trust than a promise you cannot keep.
The survey results you asked about came from a small group, mostly from one area. I wouldn't put too much weight on them. If you must use them, say so clearly in your paper.
Use the results prominently, as they support the direction your manager prefers and make the paper easier to write
The paper looks well supported, until a reader notices the survey covered only one area. A weak foundation under a strong conclusion can bring down both.
Include the survey, state its limits plainly and add what other evidence is available
The paper is slightly less tidy but much more trustworthy. The decision maker sees what is known and what is not. Good advice includes the doubt.
Leave the survey out entirely, so nobody can question the evidence
No one can attack the survey, but you have also hidden something the reader might want to know. Leaving it out is safer than overstating it, but explaining it would have been better.
That finding about shift workers is awkward. The minister's office has already announced the direction. Take it out of the briefing, it'll only cause trouble. We can deal with it later.
Take it out as asked, because he is your manager and the decision is nearly made
The briefing goes up without the finding. When the problem emerges later, people ask who knew and when. Leaving out evidence that matters is not neutral advice.
Keep it in, but move it lower down and soften the wording so it is hard to see
It is technically there, but few people read that far. You have kept your job comfortable and your advice weak. The minister deserves to see it clearly.
Explain why the finding matters to the decision, suggest a clear way to present it and raise it with Nigel respectfully
Nigel reluctantly agrees the finding must stay, with a note on how it could be addressed. Public servants give frank and fearless advice, even when it is uncomfortable.
How it went
The briefing goes up with honest advice, clear options and the voices of the people affected. Policy work asks you to weigh evidence, listen widely and tell decision makers what they need to hear in a way they can use. Is that a responsibility you would want?
This is a simplified, fictional situation to help you explore. It is not professional instruction or a test of your ability.
Case study: The bus service that did not add up
A fictional case set in the policy branch of a fictional state government transport department.
The situation
Eleni was a policy analyst in the transport department of a state government. The minister's office wanted a short briefing on whether to extend a bus route to a new housing estate. Her manager said the decision was practically made and the briefing should simply support it. But when Eleni looked at the figures and spoke to residents, she found that many residents on the estate worked on shifts outside the proposed timetable. The route would run, but it would not be used much. The briefing was due the next morning.
What they did
Eleni wrote the briefing with three options in plain words: extend the route as planned, extend it with different times, or trial a flexible on demand service. She set out what each option would cost the department, who it would help and what was uncertain. She told her manager about the shift work finding before submitting the briefing, and left the decision to the minister. She included the residents' own words, with their permission.
How it turned out
The minister chose the trial with different times. The first months showed a steady number of riders, though not as many as hoped, and the department kept adjusting. Eleni's manager later said that the briefing had made the minister's decision easier to defend.
What would you do?
- Why did Eleni present three options instead of just one?
- How would you feel if you thought your manager's view was wrong?
- Why might it matter to hear from people the policy will affect?