Service delivery and finance managers involved.

Confusing reporting lines.

Unclear objectives and divided loyalties.

Informal ways of working established by those involved supported embeddedness.

Support across the system.

Finance managers began to understand the pressures and were motivated to ensure resources follow the need.

Senior finance managers concerned that deployed managers were too embedded.

High levels of trust fostered between those involved by being part of same team.

Improved costing for provincial policies and district activities.

Finance and service delivery managers attended, but the latter not fully included.

District manager delegates chairing to finance manager.

Service delivery managers have limited influence.

Key opportunity to enable service delivery and finance managers to work together is missed.

CEOs felt their inclusion had improved resource allocation decision-making.

Provincial management saw no improvement in PFM, reducing their support.

Relationships remained strained between service delivery managers/CEOs and district finance teams due to poor leadership.

Only finance managers included because it is a PFM compliance step.

Efficient way of working for a PFM compliance activity.

Reliant on strategic direction from monthly finance meeting which was not forthcoming.

This has given weekly review committee undue decision-making power.

District finance satisfied that expenditure control has improved; acknowledge delays which cause frustration.

Service delivery managers did not support the prioritisation role this committee landed up playing.

Added to existing tensions and trust deficits because of poor feedback and a lack of collaboration with other strategies.

All district managers included.

District manager as leader.

Roles were clear.

Support for the meeting was evident.

Better working relationships.

Remaining trust deficits because of the tension between PFM processes and urgency of service delivery.