 different types of communication, enabled a large range of teams to access, use and get value from the TFD, and, later, the TFE. Given the potential risks and ethical questions surrounding such a new way of working, it is clear the information governance was given considerable focus. While legal bases were used in a way that represented a change in how data sharing can be used to meaningfully support service delivery, we found that there may be further work to do in terms of making this more apparent and transparent to different stakeholders. We also found that, in some cases, practitioners raised the issue of having access to more information than they needed to fulfil their job role. As such, a more specific validation of use cases for individual teams for accessing different elements of the TFD may be a prudent consideration going forward. As with our evaluation of outcomes, there were a range of areas that could be considered in terms of improvements around the approach to implementation. Firstly, these relate to a need at certain points for a more structured and systematic approach to delivery, which, in our view, could further enhance the outcomes already described. For example, whilst user engagement at the outset was intensive, this perhaps lacked a formality which may have driven increased usage by enabling a wider range of staff to input. Similarly, we found that a lack of detailed processes to understand how the TFD was used, may have contributed to the TFD not being iterated as it could have been in response to user experiences. Social Finance Limited +44 (0) 20 7770 6836 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ socialfinance.org.uk 72 In addition, whilst a more relational approach to training was well received by teams on the ground, a detailed understanding of t