Efficiency vs. Effectiveness – What Businesses and Government Can Learn from My GP Surgery

 Are We Chasing the Wrong Kind of Efficiency?

Cutting costs doesn’t always make things better. Sometimes, it makes them worse.

When the government tells businesses to “find efficiency savings”, it assumes that efficiency always leads to better outcomes. But what if efficiency isn’t always the answer? 

I’ve seen this firsthand. My GP surgery is brilliant, not because they cut costs, but because they focus on effectiveness first, efficiency second. Meanwhile, businesses and public services often make the mistake of pursuing efficiency at the expense of service quality.

• Elon Musk cuts jobs and automates, but does that always improve results?
• The UK government pushes civil service efficiency, but can it meet its own standards?
• Businesses chase automation and cost-cutting, but do they consider the real impact?

Let’s look at the difference between efficiency and effectiveness, and what happens when we get it wrong.

What My GP Surgery Gets Right

In January, I took a holiday for some winter sun and decided to try a surf lesson. One bad move later, I felt the sharp pain of a torn muscle in my shoulder. Having dislocated it twice before, I knew this could be serious. I needed help from my GP practice on my return to the UK.

Within 90 minutes of submitting my request online, I received a text confirming my referral to a physiotherapy specialist who would call me before lunchtime. At 11:50 am, I got the call. By 12:05 pm, I had an appointment booked at the local hospital. By 2:30 pm, I had seen a practitioner, had an X-ray, and received a confirmed diagnosis of a torn muscle. The next day, my physiotherapist followed up to discuss my recovery plan. 

This isn’t what most people expect from an NHS GP surgery. No endless phone queues. No two-week wait for an appointment. No frustration. Just an efficient, well-organised system that got me the right care, at the right time, with minimal hassle. It’s not just efficient for me but the GP practice has resolved my medical need in full within 24 hours. By solving problems quickly, they prevent bottlenecks. True efficiency isn’t about cutting time, it’s about removing friction from the whole system.

Most people complain about GP access—long waits, terrible booking processes, and endless frustration. Yet my surgery runs smoothly and efficiently. Why?

✅ Online triage instead of chaotic phone queues. I can fill out a form anytime, and a doctor calls back within hours. This system doesn’t just cut out wasted time—it improves the quality of care. Combining technology with human expertise ensures that I speak with the right medical professional sooner, not just that but someone with the appropriate specialism for my issue. 

✅ Well-trained admin staff who actually help. No pointless gatekeeping, just quick resolutions. The administrative team isn’t there to block access—they help navigate patients to the right care pathway efficiently.

✅ A culture of improvement. It’s not just about cutting costs or saving time—it’s about creating a system that works better for both patients and staff.

This isn’t just efficiency for the sake of it—it’s about making the whole system work smarter, ensuring patients get the right care, faster, while reducing unnecessary workload on doctors and admin teams.

We just need more organisations thinking along these lines. 

What Happens When Efficiency Goes Wrong? (HMRC Case Study)

Now contrast my GP’s approach with HMRC’s attempt at “efficiency”. They cut costs by closing phone lines and forcing taxpayers onto web chat and self-service. The result?

❌ 7 million wasted hours on hold in a single year.
❌ Average call wait times: 23 minutes.
❌ More frustration, more mistakes, and more complaints.

This wasn’t real efficiency—it just shifted the burden onto customers, creating new inefficiencies elsewhere.

Was it efficient for HMRC’s budget? Absolutely.
But was it effective for taxpayers? Not even close.

And that’s the problem—chasing efficiency without prioritising effectiveness leads to frustration, lost productivity, and hidden costs elsewhere.

Key Lesson: If “efficiency savings” make the experience worse for customers, employees, or taxpayers, they aren’t really savings at all.

In just one year, HMRC wasted 7 million hours—the equivalent of 40 full-time careers, lost to hold music.

How I Use Smart Efficiency in My Own Business

I believe in efficiency—but only when it makes things better, not just cheaper. In my own business, I’ve implemented automation and technology in ways that actually free up time for better service.

✔ Automating client request chasing – Instead of manually following up on missing documents, automated reminders handle it—freeing up time to give real advice instead of chasing paperwork.

✔ Streamlining client onboarding – Instead of drowning in admin, automation takes care of file-saving, document collection, and compliance, so new clients are onboarded seamlessly and efficiently.

✔ Using tech to improve client service, not replace it – Automation isn’t about cutting people, it’s about giving them more time to focus on real value. Clients want advice, not just compliance work, so my team can spend more time helping them, not chasing emails.

This is what good efficiency looks like—not just cutting costs, but improving service quality at the same time.

The False Promise of Automation & Cost-Cutting

Many businesses get automation wrong by focusing only on cost savings:

• Chatbots replace customer service teams, but customers get stuck in endless loops.
• Self-checkout machines reduce staff costs, but stores lose money to theft and frustrated shoppers.
• Corporate restructures save money short-term but lead to burnout, low morale, and high staff turnover.

Yes, cutting costs can boost profits, but if it alienates customers or reduces effectiveness, is it worth it?

Efficiency Should Be Smart, Not Ruthless

Efficiency isn’t bad—but it should serve the right goals. Some ideas that actually work:

✔ Eliminating pointless tasks – My GP surgery stopped unnecessary admin, reducing workload for staff and wait times for patients.

✔ Standardising procurement – The NHS pays wildly different prices for the same equipment. Smarter buying could save millions.

✔ Streamlining tax compliance – Businesses deal with overlapping regulation and complex tax rules. Fixing this would be real efficiency.

The goal isn’t just to cut costs—it’s to make things work better.

Conclusion: What Businesses & Government Can Learn from My GP Surgery

Efficiency isn’t about blind cost-cutting—it’s about optimising for effectiveness.

❌ Bad efficiency = Cutting customer support, increasing bureaucracy, and shifting the burden onto users.

✅ Good efficiency = Fixing broken processes, removing unnecessary friction, and improving outcomes.

Before businesses or governments chase “efficiency savings,” they should ask: Are we actually making things better, or just moving the problem elsewhere?

Final Thought: Should We Accept That Some Things Can’t Be Made More Efficient?

Some services—like healthcare, customer support, or complex tax issues—need human oversight and time to be done properly. Maybe the real challenge isn’t how to make everything efficient, but when to accept that efficiency has limits.

Next time you see a business or government policy touting 'efficiency savings,' ask yourself: is this making the system better, or just moving the burden elsewhere? Smart efficiency doesn’t just cut costs, it improves outcomes. And that’s what we should be aiming for.