alfinance.org.uk 72 In addition, whilst a more relational approach to training was well received by teams on the ground, a detailed understanding of the nature of capability issues, and where these lie in the workforce, was not developed. Likewise, a range of communications were used, but perhaps lacked the level of planning to address specific gaps in awareness and understanding in different teams. We also found there were gaps in terms of tracking and evaluating the TFD and its products on an ongoing basis. As well as documenting processes regarding how certain elements of the TFD were created. Aside from presenting contingency issues, this also presents a concern if there isn’t clear understanding around what outputs mean, as we found for practitioners with the risk models. We found that improvement to implementation also relates to a need to take a more holistic or systemic approach to create the conditions for the TFD to thrive on an ongoing basis. We acknowledge the need for the Insight Bristol team to initially adopt an agile approach so that momentum could be developed. However, we found that a lack of governance after an initial development period has constrained the TFD and its ability to enable outcomes in different ways. For example, we heard that some practitioners preferred to navigate through source systems to find information, instead of using the TFD, which perhaps a more nuanced approach to engaging senior stakeholders earlier on may have been able to address. Also, since this type of engagement did not happen, to some extent the TFD has become reliant on individual staff to make the case for its continued investment, which potentially leaves the TFD in a vulnerable position going forward. A feature of a systemic approach to delivery is understanding h