A year and a half ago, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) swept away the rigid directorate hierarchies of old and introduced what capability reviewers described as a “radical” new programme- and project-management structure modelled on those commonly seen in consultancies.

Before April last year, Defra was like any other department: it was made up of permanent directorates, and vacancies were filled through normal recruiting procedures. Then it introduced the ‘Flexible Staff Resourcing’ system – or FSR. This saw the directorates replaced by projects and programmes – some of which only exist for a few months – and introduced an intranet system which holds the CVs of all of Defra’s 2,600 core staff members, as well as details of all upcoming vacancies: 141 assignments as we went to print. Managers who need to fill a post or set up a team can search for candidates with particular skills, grades or experience; moreover, any employee with spare time can offer to help out on other projects around Defra.

The impetus for this rethink, says performance programme director Richard Price (also Defra’s chief economist), was the struggle to deliver the “rising expectations of ministers, the public and customers” in the face of a “steadily reducing headcount” (Gershon’s efficiency review recommended the loss of 2,400 staff).

The team behind FSR is enthusiastic about its success to date. Kate Hoskin, Defra’s workforce planning and resource manager, has used FSR to put together her team, and describes herself as a “passionate” fan. “It is a very quick process compared to a standard recruitment, which can take months and months,” she says. “You can have someone in [place in] a matter of weeks.” Defra says 70 per cent of assignments are now filled within 10 days, and this means that the number of unassigned staff is never more than 10 (three at the time of going to press – although there are no pre-FSR figures for comparison).

Not only does the department save money on idle or underutilised staff, says Price, but FSR should also reduce its reliance on temporary appointments. “If we can match our people with our work much more quickly, there is less pressure to get people in on short-term contracts or consultancies,” he explains. A 2006 National Audit Office report named Defra as the third-biggest Whitehall spender on consultants, paying £160m in 2005- 06. “I’m pretty sure that FSR will contribute to reducing the pressure to spend on consultants,” Price adds.

The system was also designed to give the department a much better understanding of the capabilities and skills of its people. Hoskin says its new self-knowledge is unmatched in Whitehall: “I don’t know any other department that has our ability to analyse the skills we’ve got and which skills are leaving. That kind of ‘granular’ analysis of skills is hugely valuable; that is what this is all about.” This analysis, says Price, has identified skills gaps and resulted in a “limited external recruitment” of grade 7s and Higher Executive Officers (HEOs) and the provision of PPM (project and programme management) and economic literacy training. Further IT development is improving the FSR system’s reporting capabilities – so that it can show, for example, which areas of work are providing the best value for money. Hoskin says this “more sophisticated use of the tool” is its future.

There are also big benefits for staff, the system’s champions say, with the number of job moves tripling in its first year. Price says most people “leapt at” the chance to change roles, and one third of employees have used FSR to change jobs. “Under the old system, there was a lot of untapped potential which wasn’t being realised because people did not have access to the opportunities. Now people have much more control over their own careers”, he says. “There is a sense of liberation.”

Fiona Lambert, head of FSR, says the transparency of the system is a boost for Defra employees based outside London. “We are actively encouraging managers to consider [employing] people from other locations,” says Lambert, who works in London and manages two team members who work in Bristol. “There is no reason, with all the technology that we have, that we cannot all work together without sitting together. FSR has provided far greater opportunities for people in locations such as Bristol or York to get their chosen role.”

There are risks with the system, not least the cultural change that Defra’s employees face: some may be unsettled by the lack of a ‘home’ directorate, constant moves from project to project, or the demands of competing managers. Lambert admits that the system “doesn’t work for everyone, but it is a good thing for the younger people who want to get experience and get promoted”. Aware that regularly-changing or multiple line (or ‘activity’) managers may cause problems for some staff, Defra has appointed 300 ‘development’ managers. Lambert, who is one of them, says their role is to mediate if problems arise, meet regularly with their staff for development appraisals, and be on hand to discuss any difficulties.

Price says there were also concerns that staff ‘churn’ would be too high, that employees would fail to gain deep experience, and that some people would struggle to find suitable work or learn necessary skills. “They were risks”, says Price, “but they have been well managed and haven’t materialised.” And he is not concerned that people with spare time will sit on their hands. “People are pretty honest and motivated in Defra,” he insists.

Defra employees speak highly of the transparency the system provides and the user-friendliness of the FSR interface. Hoskin says the FSR team, of which she was part, worked very closely with IT: “Everyone in the department has to use this, from junior staff and new staff to senior staff, so it has to be very straightforward and intuitive.” Lambert, who describes herself as a veteran of government IT systems, also praises the FSR technology as “fantastic: it worked from the word go”.

Hoskin partly attributes FSR’s success to the way development and training was done in-house, with only some early, limited help from consultants. “I think staff find it a lot easier to buy into things if it has been done by our own people,” she says. And Price adds that FSR and Defra’s change programme has born fruit in March’s capability review, in which the department’s rating for ‘planning, resourcing and prioritising delivery’ jumped two steps from ‘urgent development area’ to ‘well placed’. “It is testament to the work that the team has done that we were able to achieve that,” says Price.

The capability review, while it has much to say in favour of the system, also identifies a number of staff concerns about the department’s new operating system. They note complaints that it is “over-engineered” and needs some refinement; of resources being “stretched too thinly” by the new responsibilities; of a perceived lack of information about training and development; and fears of heightened scrutiny of performance under the double layer of ‘activity’ and ‘development’ managers.

Despite these concerns, the department now regards itself as a Whitehall leader in resource management and prioritisation, and is proud of the interest expressed by other departments; Hoskin has “lost count of how many other departments I’ve shown the system to”.

Perhaps more than most departments, Defra has faced financial hard times for some years; flooding, animal diseases, EU fines over the late payments of farm subsidies, tight budgetary settlements and poor financial management have all taken their toll. FSR is part of Defra’s solution – and it may well be that, once the department has tested and strengthened the system, other departments facing further pressure to deliver ‘more for less’ will decide to go down the same route.