ed us to wonder whether a more systematic approach to understanding user requirements and change requests may have supported a sense of clarity about its future direction. We’re also aware that this kind of engagement, planning and strategic thinking requires sufficient time and capacity from those in the team. From our conversations with those in the Insight Bristol team, we understand that finite team resource meant that decisions had to be made that prioritised certain delivery tasks over others. As such, there is an acknowledgment of the need to take a more systematic approach, but a lack of capacity seems to have been a key factor in why this was not possible in the earlier stages of development. Roll-out At the point of going live, those we spoke to described how there was a proactive push, a newsletter and more contact time spent supporting users, after this was identified as a need, all of which supported roll-out. A lot of internal communication occurred organically through word-of-mouth exchanges among users and through the Insight teams on-the-ground presence, which was well received by teams. More broadly, the Insight Bristol team invested time in external communications too, which brought national recognition in the form of different awards. As the Head of Service makes clear, this kind of attention served to reassure internal audiences of the legality and robustness of the approach being taken: “A lot of national communication went on, and then we've got the government funding from everyone. Winning awards was an enabler. To give people confidence with the approach.” (Head of Service) In some places this approach was particularly effective - managers knew about the TFD and promoted it to their staff; however, in other areas this didn’t happen. Such a strat