NICS Competency Framework: The Unofficial Guide 2025

1

Seeing the Big Picture

"Having an in-depth understanding and knowledge of how your role fits with and supports organisational objectives and wider public needs."

What assessors are really listening for

The framework asks candidates to look beyond their own task and understand the context it sits in. At Level 1, this means knowing how your work connects to your team's priorities. At Level 3, it means being alert to legislation and trends that could affect your area, and actively shaping policy to meet citizens' diverse needs. At Level 4 and above, assessors expect you to demonstrate that you scanned the political, economic, social, legislative, environmental and technological landscape and used that scan to influence your plans. The word "anticipate" appears explicitly at Level 4: the best candidates do not just respond to context, they spot it coming.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Gathers information from a range of relevant sources inside and outside the Department to inform own work Understands what is required of them and how this contributes to team and departmental priorities Considers how their own job links with and impacts on colleagues and partner organisations
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Alert to emerging issues, legislation and trends which might impact or benefit own and team's work Contributes to development of policies, plans and service provision to meet citizens' diverse needs Ensures own business area activities are aligned to departmental activity, policy and priorities Seeks to understand how services, activities and strategies work together to create value for the customer
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Anticipates economic, social, political, legislative, environmental and technological developments Identifies implications of departmental and political priorities on own business area Adopts a NICS-wide perspective to ensure alignment of activity and policy Brings together views and perspectives of stakeholders to gain a wider picture of the landscape

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Our branch was preparing the Department's annual equality report, due to be laid before the Assembly. The previous year's submission had attracted scrutiny from the Committee for incomplete data, and the Permanent Secretary had flagged this as a reputational risk.

T

As the SO responsible for coordinating the data from 14 contributing teams, I needed to ensure both accuracy and completeness. No one had given me explicit direction on how to address the previous year's gaps.

A

I reviewed the Committee's specific criticisms from the previous year and mapped each gap to the team responsible. I then briefed each team lead individually, explaining the Assembly's concerns and the departmental risk, rather than simply circulating a data template. I built a two-week quality assurance stage into the timeline before submission so I could identify and resolve any issues without last-minute pressure.

R

The report was submitted on time with no data gaps. The Committee raised no adverse comments, and the Permanent Secretary commended the branch in a departmental bulletin. I raised the approach with my Grade 7 as a process we should formalise for future years.

Keywords assessors listen for

departmental priorities legislative landscape strategic alignment political context citizens' needs NICS-wide perspective emerging issues Programme for Government

Why candidates fail this question

Describing what they did without ever explaining why it mattered beyond their own team. "I completed the report on time" is a task. "I completed the report on time because the data directly informed the Minister's Assembly statement" demonstrates big picture thinking. Every strong answer for this competency names a consequence that sits above the candidate's own role.

Score my example against this competency

2

Changing and Improving

"Responsive, innovative and seeking out opportunities to create effective change, considering the impacts on people and being mindful of the need to engage them."

What assessors are really listening for

The framework uses the word "seek" deliberately. Assessors want candidates who initiated change, not those who implemented a change that had already been decided. At Level 1, this is reviewing working practices and coming up with ideas. At Level 3, it is finding ways to improve systems and structures, taking managed risks, and encouraging others to meet the challenge of change. At Level 4, it is encouraging a culture of innovation, capturing diverse stakeholder insight and spotting warning signs before they become delivery failures. The managing people through change dimension is explicit in the framework: the strongest answers describe how the candidate brought colleagues with them.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Reviews working practices and comes up with ideas to improve the way things are done Learns new procedures, seeks to exploit new technologies and helps colleagues to do the same Co-operates with and is open to change, and considers ways to implement and adapt in own role
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Finds ways to improve systems, policy development and structures to deliver with more streamlined resources Regularly reviews procedures or systems with teams to identify improvements and simplify processes Prepared to take managed risks, ensuring these are planned and their impact assessed Willing to meet the challenges of difficult or complex changes, encouraging and supporting others to do the same
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Encourages a culture of innovation focused on adding value; gives people space to think creatively Effectively captures, utilises and shares customer insight and views from a diverse range of stakeholders Spots warning signs of things going wrong and provides a decisive response to delivery challenges Considers the cumulative impact on the business area of implementing change: culture, structure, service and morale

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Our team was consistently missing a 15-day correspondence response target, sitting at 62% compliance. The issue appeared in quarterly performance reporting but no one had been asked to address it.

T

I decided to take ownership of diagnosing the root cause and proposing a solution, rather than wait to be directed.

A

I mapped every step of our correspondence journey and identified that 70% of delays occurred at a single handoff point between two teams. I developed a new shared inbox arrangement with clear ownership rules, piloted it with three staff for two weeks to identify any practical problems, then ran a briefing session for the whole team. Two colleagues were resistant to changing a process they knew well, so I involved them in refining the design rather than presenting it as a done deal. I also assessed the risk that the pilot might cause short-term disruption and built in a contingency period before rolling out fully.

R

Compliance rose from 62% to 89% within six weeks. Two other branches in the Division subsequently adopted the same approach after I shared the results with my Grade 7.

Keywords assessors listen for

I identified I initiated managed risk I simplified pilot resistance to change I encouraged cumulative impact

Why candidates fail this question

"My manager asked me to change the process so I did." The initiative must originate with the candidate. If the change was directed from above, the candidate must own the diagnosis, the solution design, and the management of people through the transition. Candidates who describe a change but never mention its impact on colleagues or users will score poorly against the "mindful of the need to engage them" dimension of this competency.

Score my example against this competency

3

Making Effective Decisions

"Being objective, using sound judgement, evidence and knowledge to provide accurate, expert and professional advice."

What assessors are really listening for

The framework asks for the reasoning process, not just the outcome. At Level 1, this means following decision-making criteria and thinking through implications before acting. At Level 3, it means exploring different options, outlining costs, benefits and risks for each, and inviting challenge rather than deciding alone. At Level 4, the framework specifically asks candidates to act or decide even when details are not clear: assessors at this level want evidence of sound judgement under ambiguity. The phrase "push decision making to the right level" at Level 4 also tests whether candidates have empowered their teams rather than bottlenecking decisions upward.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Makes and records effective decisions following appropriate decision-making criteria, frameworks or guidance Undertakes appropriate analysis to support decisions or recommendations Thinks through the implications of own decisions before confirming an approach Speaks up to clarify decisions and queries them constructively
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Makes decisions when they are needed, even if difficult or unpopular Identifies a range of relevant and credible information sources and recognises when new data is needed Explores different options outlining costs, benefits, risks and potential responses to each Invites challenge and, where appropriate, involves others in decision making to build engagement
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Pushes decision making to the right level; does not allow unnecessary bureaucracy to suppress innovation Draws together reasonable conclusions from wide-ranging, incomplete and complex evidence; acts even when details are not clear Analyses and evaluates pros and cons and identifies risks in order to make sound policy decisions Makes difficult decisions by pragmatically weighing the complexities involved against the need to deliver objectives

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

A senior stakeholder submitted a request for an exception to our standard process. The request came with a 24-hour deadline, and our guidance did not clearly cover the scenario.

T

As the responsible SO, I needed to present my Grade 7 with a properly reasoned recommendation rather than a straightforward approval or refusal.

A

I identified three options: approve in full, refuse outright, or approve with conditions. I mapped each against our risk framework, reviewed two comparable precedents from our case files, and sought a brief steer from Legal on reputational risk. I then invited a colleague with relevant policy experience to challenge my draft reasoning before I finalised it. I produced a one-page options paper with a clear recommendation, including the rationale, so my Grade 7 could present it upward with confidence.

R

My Grade 7 accepted the recommendation without amendment. The exception was approved with conditions, the stakeholder was satisfied, and the decision was not challenged. My options paper format was adopted by the team for similar cases going forward.

Keywords assessors listen for

I weighed the options costs, benefits and risks evidence-based I invited challenge I recommended sound judgement credible sources implications

Why candidates fail this question

"I decided to do X and it worked out." Stating a decision and its outcome without the analytical process scores poorly. Assessors need to hear what information was gathered, which options were considered, what the risks of each were, and why the chosen option was preferable. The quality of the reasoning matters more to the assessor than whether the decision itself was ultimately correct.

Score my example against this competency

4

Leading and Communicating

"Effectively leading from the front and communicating with clarity, conviction and enthusiasm."

What assessors are really listening for

This competency has two components that candidates often conflate. For the communication element, the framework is not interested in which channels were used. It is looking for how the candidate adapted their style, methods and timing to maximise understanding and impact, as the Level 3 indicator states verbatim. Sending an email is not evidence of communication competency. Recognising that two audience groups needed the same message framed differently, and acting on that recognition, is. For the leading element, the framework at Level 3 asks candidates to take opportunities to regularly communicate with staff, clarifying goals and the links to departmental strategy. At Level 4, the expectation is visibility: being present to staff and stakeholders and generating commitment to goals.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Puts forward own views in a clear and constructive manner, choosing an appropriate communication method Writes clearly in plain, simple language and checks work for spelling and grammar Acts in a fair and respectful way in dealing with others
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Communicates using appropriate styles, methods and timing, including digital channels, to maximise understanding and impact Takes opportunities to regularly communicate with staff, clarifying goals and the links to departmental policy Communicates effectively in a succinct, engaging manner; knows when to stand ground when needed Conveys enthusiasm and energy about work and encourages others to do the same
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Visible to staff and stakeholders; regularly undertakes activities to engage and build trust Clarifies policies, strategies and plans, giving a clear sense of direction and purpose Confidently engages with stakeholders and colleagues at all levels to generate commitment to goals Leads by example, role modelling ethics, integrity, impartiality and the elimination of bias

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Our division was migrating to a new case management system. Several experienced staff were concerned that their accumulated knowledge of the old system would become redundant, and morale was visibly declining in the weeks before go-live.

T

I was the SO leading the transition for a team of eight. No one had specifically asked me to address the morale issue; that was my decision.

A

I held individual conversations with each team member to understand their specific concern rather than a group meeting where anxiety can build on itself. I then designed two separate communication streams: practical FAQs for process concerns, and a separate narrative that positioned each person's existing knowledge as essential to making the new system work, rather than something to be discarded. I made myself available for a drop-in each morning for the first three weeks. I also made a point of being visibly present on the floor during the first week of live operation, not just sending updates by email.

R

The team went live on schedule with the highest confidence self-assessment score across the four teams in the division. One colleague who had been particularly resistant became an informal champion of the new system within the branch.

Keywords assessors listen for

I adapted my style appropriate method maximise understanding I stood ground I was visible I generated commitment clear sense of direction I conveyed

Why candidates fail this question

Listing the channels used rather than describing the content and impact of the communication. "I sent emails, held team meetings and used Teams" describes activity, not competency. Assessors want to hear what was communicated, how it was tailored to the audience, and what changed as a result. The framework asks specifically about style, methods and timing chosen to maximise impact.

Score my example against this competency

5

Collaborating and Partnering

"Creating and maintaining positive, professional and trusting working relationships with a wide range of people within and outside the Civil Service."

What assessors are really listening for

Candidates consistently underestimate this competency by interpreting it as getting along well with colleagues. The framework is more specific. At Level 3, it requires dealing with conflict in a prompt, calm and constructive manner and investing time to generate a common focus and genuine team spirit. At Level 4, it requires effectively managing team dynamics when working across departmental and other boundaries, and seeking constructive outcomes while remaining willing to compromise. Assessors need to see evidence of navigating a relationship that had a point of friction or competing priority, not just describing a collaborative environment.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Proactively contributes to the work of the whole team Tries to see issues from others' perspectives and checks understanding Seeks help when needed in order to complete own work effectively Listens to the views of others and shows sensitivity towards others
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Establishes relationships with a range of stakeholders to support delivery of policy and business outcomes Invests time to generate a common focus and genuine team spirit Deals with conflict in a prompt, calm and constructive manner Readily shares resources to support higher priority work, showing pragmatism and support for shared goals
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Actively builds and maintains a network to achieve progress on shared interests Effectively manages team dynamics when working across departmental and other boundaries Actively involves partners to deliver policy and business outcomes through collaboration Seeks constructive outcomes in discussions; challenges assumptions but remains willing to compromise

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Our branch needed data from another team to complete a statutory return. The other team's SO had deprioritised our requests repeatedly, citing their own workload. The relationship had become strained and our deadline was approaching.

T

Rather than escalating formally, I decided to try to resolve the issue directly. I wanted a solution that would work beyond this one deadline.

A

I requested a face-to-face conversation with the other SO, making clear I wanted to understand their team's pressures before discussing any solution. I found that a recent staffing change meant the extraction task was falling to one person with no capacity. I offered to have one of my team trained on their system so we could extract the data ourselves under appropriate permissions. I also shared the statutory consequence of a delay, which the other SO had not been aware of. We agreed the arrangement between ourselves and I flagged to both our Grade 7s that it was in place.

R

We received the data within four days. The cross-team arrangement has continued as a standing practice, removing the dependency that had caused the friction in the first place.

Keywords assessors listen for

competing priorities I dealt with conflict common focus I shared resources across boundaries constructive outcome I invested time stakeholder relationships

Why candidates fail this question

"We all got on well and worked as a great team." This describes a pleasant environment, not a competency. The framework requires evidence that the candidate dealt with conflict or navigated competing priorities. If the answer contains no friction, no disagreement and no compromise, it will not score well against the Level 3 indicators. Assessors need to hear a moment where collaboration was hard and how the candidate made it work.

Score my example against this competency

6

Building Capability for All

"Investing in people's skills and providing a safe environment for learning. Having a strong focus on continuous learning for oneself, others and the organisation."

What assessors are really listening for

This competency has a personal dimension and an organisational dimension. Candidates who provide only a self-development story satisfy the first but not the second. At Level 3, the framework explicitly requires developing team members, devoting time to coach, mentor and develop others, and identifying and addressing team or individual capability requirements. At Level 4, it requires ensuring that individual and organisational learning opportunities are fully exploited to enhance organisational capability. The phrase "for all" in the title is deliberate: the framework asks candidates to consider the diverse contributions and needs of all team members, not just those who are already strong performers.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Identifies own skills, knowledge and behaviour gaps to inform own development plan Shares learning with team and colleagues; contributes to the team's shared learning Improves own performance by taking on board feedback from colleagues with different backgrounds Reacts constructively to developmental feedback and makes changes as a result
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Identifies and addresses team or individual capability requirements and gaps to deliver current and future work Develops team members, devoting time to coach, mentor and develop others Values and responds to different personal needs in the team using these to develop others and promote inclusiveness Continually seeks and acts on feedback to evaluate and improve own and team's performance
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Ensures individual and organisational learning and development opportunities are fully exploited to enhance capability Coaches and supports colleagues to take responsibility for their own development through accountability, varied assignments and ongoing feedback Identifies capability requirements needed to deliver future team objectives and manages resources accordingly Role models workplace-based learning and encourages development and career management for all staff

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Following a restructure, my team was asked to absorb a new function managing stakeholder correspondence, which none of them had done before. There was no formal handover period and the first batch was due within two weeks.

T

As the SO, I needed to build the team's capability quickly without dropping quality on their existing workload. I also recognised that different team members would need different levels of support.

A

I spent a day mapping the new process end-to-end, then produced a structured guide with annotated examples of good practice drawn from precedent letters. I ran a two-hour workshop, set up a buddy arrangement, and personally reviewed the first five responses from each team member, giving specific written feedback on each. I held brief check-ins each morning for the first week. For one team member who I assessed as having strong aptitude for the work, I spoke to my Grade 7 about giving her additional development exposure in this area. I also made sure to check in with a colleague who was finding the transition harder, adjusting how I gave feedback to suit how she responded to it.

R

The team met the first deadline with a 94% quality pass rate. The team member I flagged was subsequently offered a short-term development secondment, which she has credited as a significant step in her career.

Keywords assessors listen for

capability gap I coached I mentored development opportunity different personal needs I sought feedback organisational capability I identified a gap

Why candidates fail this question

Providing a self-development story and stopping there. "I completed a leadership course and found it useful for managing my team" covers only the personal dimension. The framework at Level 3 and above requires the candidate to demonstrate that they invested in others' development, responded to different personal needs within the team, and produced a measurable improvement in team or organisational capability as a result.

Score my example against this competency

7

Delivering Value for Money

"Efficient, effective and economic use of taxpayers' money in the pursuit of public interest."

What assessors are really listening for

Staying within budget is a professional baseline, not a competency answer. The framework at Level 1 asks candidates to challenge waste and be careful with all types of resource. At Level 3, it asks them to recommend actions to achieve value for money, cultivate cost awareness in the team, and hold the team to account for resource use. At Level 4, the language becomes more strategic: achieve the best return on investment, deliver more for less, balance policy aspiration with delivery, and weigh the priority and benefits of different actions. The strongest answers for this competency name what was at stake, describe a deliberate choice between options, and quantify the outcome.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Challenges others appropriately where they see wastage Careful with all types of resource (money, time, materials, fuel, energy) Handles numbers confidently and collates financial and performance data accurately Maintains recognised financial procedures and practices
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Recommends actions to achieve value for money, efficiency and reduce fraud and error Cultivates and encourages awareness of cost, using clear simple examples of benefits and how to measure outcomes Works confidently with performance management and financial data to manage and monitor budget against agreed plans Monitors use of resources in line with plans and holds team to account
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Achieves the best return on investment and delivers more for less on specific budgets Balances policy aspiration and delivery; outlines risk and benefits of options to achieve value for money Weighs up the priority and benefits of different actions to consider how to achieve cost-effective outcomes Understands the financial position of own area and the wider organisation

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Our branch used an external supplier for data analysis at a cost of £18,000 per quarter. When the overall budget was cut by 20%, this contract came under review.

T

I was asked to review the contract and make a recommendation on whether to renew, renegotiate or terminate.

A

I conducted a cost-benefit comparison between the supplier's output and what the team could produce internally. I found that 60% of the work was routine and within our team's existing capability. I recommended a hybrid model: terminate the routine element of the contract, train two staff members on the relevant tools, and retain the supplier only for specialist modelling. I calculated the projected saving and quality impact, presented the options paper to my Grade 7, and included a risk section covering the period before the internal capability was established. I also spoke to the two staff members about the retraining opportunity to ensure they were willing and able.

R

The hybrid model was approved. We saved £28,000 annually. The internal staff gained new skills that have since been applied to other analytical work, and the quality of routine analysis improved because it was produced by people with direct knowledge of our business context.

Keywords assessors listen for

value for money return on investment I recommended cost-benefit I challenged waste deliver more for less financial data I held to account

Why candidates fail this question

"I came in under budget" or "I was careful with resources." Staying within budget is a professional expectation, not evidence of value for money delivery. The framework asks candidates to actively seek better value: to challenge spend, make trade-offs between options, quantify the outcome, and build cost awareness in the team. An answer without a deliberate decision and a measurable result will not score well.

Score my example against this competency

8

Managing a Quality Service

"Striving to improve the quality of service, taking account of the diverse needs and expectations of users."

What assessors are really listening for

This competency is about evidence-led improvement against standards, not effort. At Level 1, the framework asks candidates to actively seek information from customers to understand their needs, take ownership of issues and keep customers informed of progress. At Level 3, it asks them to develop, implement, maintain and review systems and service standards, establish mechanisms to seek out and respond to customer feedback, and develop proposals to improve quality with involvement from a diverse range of stakeholders. At Level 4, the expectation is to establish how the business area compares to customer service expectations and best practice, and to ensure the service thoroughly considers customers' needs and the full range of available methods to meet them.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Actively seeks information from customers to understand their needs and expectations Takes ownership of issues and keeps customers and delivery partners up to date with progress Encourages customers to access relevant information or support to help them use services effectively Gains the knowledge needed to follow relevant legislation, policies, procedures and rules
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Develops, implements, maintains and reviews systems and service standards to provide quality, efficiency and value for money Establishes mechanisms to seek out and respond to feedback from customers about policy and service Makes effective use of project management skills to deliver outcomes, identifying risks and mitigating actions Develops proposals to improve quality of service with involvement from a diverse range of staff, stakeholders or delivery partners
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Establishes how the business area compares to customer service expectations and industry best practice Makes clear, pragmatic and manageable plans for policy and service delivery using programme and project management disciplines Creates regular opportunities for staff and customers to help improve service quality Ensures the service thoroughly considers customers' diverse needs and the full range of available methods to meet them

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Our team's customer satisfaction survey showed a consistent 61% satisfaction rate against a departmental target of 75%. Analysis of open-text comments showed that customers most commonly felt uninformed about the status of their case during the assessment stage.

T

I took responsibility for investigating the root cause and developing a proposal to improve the service, involving staff and a sample of customers in the solution design.

A

I mapped our full case journey and found that customers received no contact from us for an average of 23 days during assessment. I developed two interventions: an automated interim update at days 10 and 20, and a simple tracking reference so customers could get an immediate status update when they called the helpline. I involved two front-line staff in testing the approach to identify practical issues before rollout, and I ran the revised process past a small group of customers from diverse backgrounds to check it was accessible and clear to different user groups.

R

Satisfaction scores rose from 61% to 79% within two quarters. Helpline call volumes dropped by 18%, freeing staff capacity for casework. I reported the results to my Grade 7 and recommended the customer feedback mechanism be built into our annual service review as standard.

Keywords assessors listen for

service standards customer feedback I established a mechanism root cause diverse needs I developed a proposal quality assurance measurable improvement

Why candidates fail this question

Conflating effort with quality improvement. "I worked hard and always put the customer first" is a values statement, not a competency answer. Assessors need to hear the standard that was being measured against, the evidence that the service was falling short, the specific changes made, and the outcome. Vague commitment to customer service will not score against the Level 3 indicators.

Score my example against this competency

9

Delivering at Pace

"Delivering timely performance with energy and taking responsibility and accountability for quality outcomes."

What assessors are really listening for

This competency is about prioritisation and accountability under pressure, not speed or long working hours. The Level 3 indicators require candidates to plan ahead but reassess workloads and priorities if situations change, to show a positive approach when keeping the team focused on goals that really matter, and to take responsibility for delivering expected outcomes on time and to standard. At Level 4, the framework asks candidates to clarify business priorities, roles and responsibilities, to secure individual and team ownership, and to review and challenge performance levels to ensure quality outcomes are delivered on time. The accountability dimension appears explicitly at every level: assessors want to hear how the candidate owned the outcome, including managing upward when a risk emerged.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Works in an organised manner using own knowledge to deliver on time and to standard Takes responsibility for the quality of own work and keeps manager informed of progress Maintains consistent performance Remains focused on delivery
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Successfully manages, supports and stretches self and team to deliver agreed goals and objectives Plans ahead but reassesses workloads and priorities if situations change or people face conflicting demands Takes responsibility for delivering expected outcomes on time and to standard Regularly monitors own and team's work against milestones or targets and acts promptly to keep work on track
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Clarifies business priorities, roles and responsibilities and secures individual and team ownership Maintains effective performance in difficult and challenging circumstances, encouraging others to do the same Reviews, challenges and adjusts performance levels to ensure quality outcomes are delivered on time Acts as a role model in supporting and energising teams to build confidence in their ability to deliver

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

Two weeks before a Ministerial policy submission deadline, a key team member went on extended sick leave, taking with them specialist knowledge of the statistical annex.

T

Accountability for the submission sat with me as the SO. I had to find a way to deliver on time without that specialist knowledge and without compromising quality.

A

I flagged the risk to my Grade 7 immediately so there were no surprises further up the chain. I then mapped what I knew against what I needed, and identified a colleague in another branch with relevant statistical experience. I negotiated a five-day loan of that colleague's time with their line manager. I produced a revised delivery plan, shared it with all stakeholders, and deprioritised all non-critical work for the remaining team members for the duration. I personally drafted the structural framework for the statistical section so the specialist colleague could build on it efficiently rather than starting from scratch. I set a monitoring point at day three of the rearranged plan to assess whether we were on track to deliver.

R

The submission was delivered on time and required no revision from Ministerial office. My Grade 7 noted the risk management and transparent communication as the key factors in the successful outcome.

Keywords assessors listen for

I reassessed priorities I flagged the risk conflicting demands I took responsibility monitoring point I deprioritised on time and to standard I kept stakeholders informed

Why candidates fail this question

"I worked late every night until the deadline." Working long hours implies poor planning or poor workload management, and it does not score against any Level 3 indicator. The framework requires evidence of reassessing priorities, monitoring against targets, keeping stakeholders informed, and taking responsibility for outcomes. Candidates who describe endurance rather than structured delivery consistently score below the line on this competency.

Score my example against this competency

10

Achieving Outcomes through Delivery Partners

"Maintaining an economic, long-term focus in all activities involving delivery partners, public bodies, and other organisations."

What assessors are really listening for

This is the NICS-specific competency not present in the UK Civil Service framework, and it reflects the significant role that external suppliers, arm's-length bodies and voluntary organisations play in NICS service delivery. At Level 1, the framework asks candidates to understand the terms and conditions of relevant contracts and to check that suppliers are providing relevant and timely data. At Level 3, it asks candidates to consider alternative ways of working with partners to identify more efficient outcomes, and to gather and use evidence to assess costs, benefits and risks of different delivery options. At Level 4, it requires the ability to motivate improved performance from suppliers, challenge gaps between contractual commitments and actual delivery, and understand the key drivers that influence a private or third-sector organisation. The consistent theme is intelligent stewardship: holding partners to account while maintaining a relationship that serves the public interest long-term.

Key indicators by grade

Grade	Indicators the panel is scoring against
Level 1 (AO)	Understands the relevant terms and conditions, including required deliverables, of relevant contracts Checks suppliers and partners are providing relevant and timely data to support claims and assist with contract delivery Aware of and compliant with departmental procurement processes Learns about customers' and suppliers' needs
Level 3 (SO/DP)	Considers alternative ways of working with partners to identify more efficient outcomes, balancing cost, quality and turnaround Gathers and uses evidence to assess costs, benefits and risks of delivery options when making decisions Identifies and understands relevant legal and commercial terms, concepts and processes to deliver agreed outcomes Works with experts in engaging effectively and intelligently with delivery partners to define or improve service delivery
Level 4 (G7/G6)	Understands the key drivers that will influence a private or third-sector organisation and the levers available in negotiations Motivates improved performance by suppliers; challenges gaps between contractual commitments and actual delivery Interacts confidently as an intelligent, knowledgeable and credible customer with counterparts from delivery organisations Questions and challenges the value being delivered through business arrangements with delivery partners

Worked STAR anchor (Level 3)

Example answer structure SO / Deputy Principal

S

An external voluntary sector partner was responsible for a community outreach programme funded through our branch. A mid-year review showed participant numbers were 35% below the contracted target and the partner had not proactively flagged this to us.

T

As the contract manager, I needed to address the underperformance in a way that protected the public investment without destroying the relationship. This partner had community access that would be difficult to replace.

A

I arranged a structured review meeting rather than issuing a formal contract notice. I made clear I wanted to understand the cause before taking any action. I found that an unannounced staffing change had reduced their delivery capacity significantly. Working from a clear understanding of the contract terms and with advice from our procurement colleagues, I agreed a recovery plan with revised quarterly milestones, introduced monthly monitoring calls, and amended the reporting template to include an early-warning flag for staffing or resource changes. I was transparent with my Grade 7 about the risk and the agreed mitigation, and set a decision point at the end of quarter three to assess whether the recovery was on track.

R

The partner recovered to 95% of contracted targets by year-end. The monthly monitoring arrangement has been retained as standard practice for all delivery partner contracts in our branch.

Keywords assessors listen for

contractual terms I challenged the gap costs, benefits and risks recovery plan intelligent customer I held to account public value delivery partner

Why candidates fail this question

Framing the partner as an opponent to be defeated, or alternatively being so focused on the relationship that accountability disappears from the story entirely. The framework requires both: clear expectations and action when those expectations are not met, combined with genuine commitment to understanding the partner's position and working constructively toward a solution. Purely adversarial or purely accommodating answers both miss the Level 3 indicators.

If you have limited delivery partner experience

The framework uses "delivery partners" broadly. External suppliers, voluntary and community organisations, arm's-length bodies, other government departments and agencies all qualify. If you have managed any external relationship where performance against agreed outputs was your responsibility, that experience is relevant to this competency. The key is to focus on the accountability and evidence-gathering dimensions the indicators describe.

Score my example against this competency

NICS CompetencyFramework

Seeing the Big Picture

Changing and Improving

Making Effective Decisions

Leading and Communicating

Collaborating and Partnering

Building Capability for All

Delivering Value for Money

Managing a Quality Service

Delivering at Pace

Achieving Outcomes through Delivery Partners

Ready to test your examples?

Further reading

NICS Competency
Framework