s, in many cases personal preference surfaced as the key determining factor, taking some staff away from using the TFD. I don’t use TFD as much as I could, because of the “multiple systems” thing – we’ve got our own case recording system where we put stuff in.” (Early Intervention Manager) In addition, a consequence of not fully embedding the TFD as a mandatory element of the technological ecosystem has meant that it has been subject to the whims of different senior staff at different points. For example, one senior stakeholder was unclear on how data sharing on the basis Social Finance Limited +44 (0) 20 7770 6836 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ socialfinance.org.uk 56 of public task worked and therefore paused the development of the TFE product, only for activity to continue after they left. Others note that a lack of shared ownership has meant the TFD has become reliant on certain individuals to champion it. This presents challenges when these individuals leave, as their knowledge, connections and influence depart with them. Additionally, this leaves the TFD in a vulnerable position in terms of securing long-term funding to maintain the product as well as the technical and business liaison teams that support it: “The management of the tool relies on key individuals within the team rather than shared council governance, which posed threats to its sustainability.” (Insight Bristol team) “In terms of long scale sustainability of the tool, I think it is low because it was developed off on one side and it wasn't well accepted by the rest of the teams as much. And the IT structures, they didn't really know about it.” (Insight Bristol team) TFE Governance When the TFE was first launched, a governance group, with the Council’s Safeguarding Education Team, was set up, who m