Good morning. I will try again not to be very dense, a bit practical but without losing the base of the discussion. So this is something that we are going to discuss in this construction. This initiative, what I call a technical recommendation, is being part of the Innovation Committee activities. And the idea is that we need to figure out a way that all these work that we are doing and pushing forward in terms of the value of information it should go also to the industry side but in the most as possible efficient way. So with some brainstorming among our colleagues here in the construction we can work with a technical recommendation concept which is basically what we like. It's not something, it's quite different. It's a very short document, very short. I put the maximum four pages and then plus one page which I call it a request form. I think also that there should be a kind of a letter format. So it's not a report, it's not a guideline, it's not a code. It's a kind of a letter. And the writing style should be non-technical, mainly from a decision-maker point of view, not use jargon terms or very complicated terms. And I put here something similar to a law document. It's not a law document, the idea is that this document should support owners to something further which is ultimately, let's say, have some real benefit on this tool. And in terms of content we suggest mainly two parts. The first part which is the technical recommendation, as I said, maximum four pages where we define very clear the scope, we define the problem, the methods that will support the problem solving and then giving evidence of the issues and benefit of the methods mainly supported on the case studies that we are studying here. So as far as I know, we have 19 case studies. So what we could do is work that Dimitris is working on in the guidelines and reports. We will have a very detailed description, outcome of the different case studies. Perhaps in this document we can then say that if the owner or a concessionary as a structure might fit in one of these 19 case studies with high similarities, this document having the cost action behind supporting the owners to give evidence to the authorities that perhaps they should think about considering more efficiently the value of a CGM that has been provided that structure. And for that, then there is a second part that we suggest. It's a kind of a request form, one page where clearly they identify what the owner is trying to negotiate or asking some awareness to the authorities for this issue. But of course, this is a top-level document, very short, very concise, non-technical. Perhaps might be used as an attachment to the owners, concessionaries, they have some obligations according to their contracts but perhaps when they deliver reports of the theoretical inspection reports, they might decide at a certain point in time that we have a lot of other type of information. In this case we are mainly focusing on the value of a CGM and perhaps we should attach this document, very short. But of course a very short document is not enough because for pages we cannot see that as everything. So as a background on this document we should use the guidelines that have been produced in this construction as Dimitris was referring. I think also reference to the journal papers that are being produced along this part of the construction which also gives robustness from a scientific point of view. And of course also we should explore a little bit what the code tells in this context if we have some open windows in the code that perhaps we should also push forward. So I think that as in the end of this document, a very concise list of references that if needed to check, they can go further in Dimitris. So, okay, this is repeated, sorry about the background. So I printed a mail, so I've been working on this with Sebastian. So this is a type of mail, so it is two pages, so it can be two pages, four pages maximum. So as you can see very clearly the scope, the problem statement, methods, what are the recommendations that we suggest if your case that you have in your infrastructure part has high similarities with one of these 19 case studies that we are working on. So something that is important is that we expect that all this community of the construction here signs this document if they agree, of course. So this is under discussion inside of the construction, which I think will give even more power, more strength to this document because it's mainly this community of experts in the area from different countries, even from different continents, that will support this document which I think brings some consensus and not only a single vision on this problem. So that is about how you think this document should be written. And I'm making this question mainly to the decision makers, okay, on the context as well on these English innovation days. So I put some questions here that I will address to you, and I think this could be discussed further in the discussion session that we will have later on. So for example, how you see the problem from a decision maker point of view. So in terms, I put here some initial questions, but this is not exhausted in this list. So for example, is the problem in terms of managing limited budget, do you consider that ranking prioritization of structure for maintenance is an issue? Well, I suppose that an owner that has an infrastructure park sometimes needs to decide in a certain point in time if they should continue to invest in maintenance or replacement, condition versus performance. Other dimensions of the problem should be included in this discussion. Another question is what is the main objective from the decision maker point of view? So what do you want as a decision maker? Optimized budget utilization? Do you want to have a better ranking on the critical structure for maintenance? All of these questions in the context on how this value of ACGM can contribute to answer these questions. So from what you see during these two days, and behind them if you want to Google it a bit what we are doing further, how this value of ACGM might address these questions or others that you consider that is not here? Something more, more too, is how you decision makers would suggest like prefer seeing this region the benefit they are using in ACGM-based solutions. So repair costs, maintenance costs, lifetime costs, other type of costs. So this is something that we should also shape into the document. And also in terms of what is important from the perspective, how you think about using the value of ACGM? Should you think about that for your cases it's not about temporary punctual or periodic monitoring or as I presented in the case of a zero bridge, which is a case of a permanent and continuous monitoring? Of course there are different benefits, but also depends on the case-by-case situation. And of course something that I think makes all sense, at least my perception, is that although we are presenting specific studies, this is this bridge, this is this building, this is this roof of a stadium, whatever, from a decision maker point of view that is responsible for the infrastructure part, they are not talking about one bridge or one building or one roof, they are talking about perhaps hundreds of thousands. So this issue of scalability, it's important because the marginal cost will decrease as you are putting these investments in a wider number of structures. But it's up to the decision makers, because they know, or you know better than us, how it should be framed, should we look at case-by-case, or do you think that we are in a stage that we should start thinking about a little bit more? There are specific structures that perhaps they are similar, so the conclusions that we get from case number five, this could be extended to 50 bridges that are very similar in our infrastructure part, something like this, because I think from the cost point of view it's highly benefit when you think in scalability of the product. And then, something that I think it's also important to think and discuss is the request. So what I suggest is one page, something like this. We have a first level about according to the recommendation or commission on technology with this level, so it's a matter of how mature is the technology solution to be employed in the real markets. We should clearly identify for a specific solution that you are interested in. I think we can also already adapt a little bit in this perspective. The technology ready in this level is, I think, very important, but in a way it is written up now. It's also very confusing because it's the technology, but we don't just talk technology or maybe we talk technology characteristics. And in this perspective, yes, we should be aware that it relates to our concepts or concept readiness level. In this sense, I think it's very important that we have the readiness level. I'm not going beyond technology. This is the message until we have maybe someone who takes up this readiness level and puts this in a larger context, not just the technology. Yes, of course. I'm not talking in the context that I'm presenting about the solution for a sensor or an hardware system. No, it's more than that. It's a concept which includes an hardware solution plus a process of data processing that gives you the value of the data. So this also in my perspective, when I say technology readiness level, it can also be extended to the final outcome of this technology that we're employing, which is not limited to collect data from sensors and having a list of, let's say, data files with results. No, there is a little bit, including in terms of the framework of the volume information because please don't forget that at least in my experience and perspective, decision makers will not be happy to have a very powerful hardware system that produce cheaper parts of data and then that's it. When I say readiness level, it's the final information that you feel efficient to decide, to help them to decide what to do and how accurate this solution is. So when I put these levels, it's perhaps from these 19 case studies, some of them might be more sharp in the answer, others might be a little bit more depending on the subject, the structure, the complexity of the information. But I think it's a very nice starting point when you start with the request, is what we are asking, it has some categorized level of information. This is something that it's agreed that we will know. There is something that we suggest is what is the SSM as its system and relevance in the context of asset management, so what you are using and also align it with one of these 19 case studies as a prototype that you won't extend or you have already experienced on it. Then also, if you have already some work on it, for example, a zero-quitch has been operating for 12 years, so could also include what is the main findings related to the effective condition of the structure based on the value of information that you get from the SSM data. Very clear, same, what is the benefit that you will collect, for example. And then also, what is the action that you request from the SSM? What you are asking to the authorities? You are asking for redefined maintenance plan schedule in terms of postponing extra visual inspection, renegotiate the PV intervals, but we expect to be extensive or intensive. And finally, of course, in such very short and top-level documents, it should be clear a section where you include supporting documents for this request. If there are reports of the observation of the structure where you give evidence of the value of SSM, instead of putting all these reports, you put a reference to it, and then you put the request if the authorities are happy to discuss with you and know a little bit more about it, you go deep. So this is like an invitation to the authorities to look it in a more careful way and in a very structured way how to see it. Thank you very much for these explanations. Maybe we should also, for my clarity, ask who requests and who is requested. So as we are saying, this technical recommendation is devoted mainly to the city-members. So I'm mainly focusing on the entities that are responsible for managing structures. Might be owners, might be concessionaries, whatever. There might be a consultant company that is giving support, but in a legal way. And they want, in the perspective that, well, we are doing a lot of investment, we have a strategic approach to invest more because we are having this background from this community, it's saying, and we get evidence. Then we need to request to whom. When we have a contract where we sign some conditions, we have some responsibilities, we have some obligations. And I'm talking about, for example, the obligations, you are obliged to maintain the structures, maintain the level of functionality, but you want to change some condition of this term. So you are asking to the authorities with whom you are having a contract for this concession of the infrastructure problem or who owns the structures themselves. Wait, I'm trying to understand. The request comes from the owners or concessionaries to request services. Is this the perspective? Yes, it's okay. So, for example, in Portugal, some infrastructures, the owner, in Portugal, some big infrastructures, the owners, is the Portuguese people. So we pay taxes to maintain them, yes. So, for example, Riza is a concessionary. They don't hold the structure. They have a contract with the government, they have some obligations, they are responsible for doing this and they need to deliver this, whatever it is. These aims, in my perspective, this is a case that our others try to change a little with this paradigm between these contracts, between the owners and concessionaries on civil engineering infrastructure. So this can be a tendering process or for preparation of a tendering process? Yes. Okay. So, Johan, do you have something to comment on that? Yes, actually, I have a process on quantity. One second. Yes. Okay. So I think very much, I think this is a very good initiative and I think it's very important also to address the decision-makers in rather technical terms. So I would totally support that because I think it's very important that the decision-makers become better the possibilities they have when they do their decision-making and that they move further than the pure exploration of some physical actions they might do in the system to what's the exploration of decisions that are associated with this information. So I think it would be very good to have a document to inform about these possibilities but also formulate the way that this corresponds to a set of requirement decision-makers they have to fulfill when they make these important decisions for the society in terms of infrastructure management. Thank you, Johan, for your comment. Do you have some immediate comment on that or should I address the world? Thank you. I think we are in the same tune, let's say, and as I said in the beginning, perhaps not so clearly, but this document, perhaps now with the discussion that you will have, this is mainly for the decision-makers. So I'm very happy and looking forward to receive their feedback to help us to set up this document properly from their point of view, which I think is the idea. This is a top-level document and better than us, they know how to approach these authorities, what are the issues, having us the construction as a background with these 19 case studies that help strengthen their approach to the authorities with whom they have responsibilities in terms of the maintenance of these civil engineering infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you, Heather, for the presentation and there have been... Nothing. I'm sorry. The next slide is, I finished this question, does this layout fit the requirements from your point of view as a decision-maker? So this is something that we have been working, thinking about, but I think our side is as limited experience in this decision-making process, but we are trying, instead of just arriving here, I give you an idea, we are trying to also give you a ready a concept, a draft, which now we won't perhaps review your inputs, because this is for you, it's not for us, this is my perception, this is for your benefit, it's not for us, this is not only used for research or to get funding or to get... Search proposals are a general paper note. This is for decision-makers to get the benefit that I suppose they want, because they invest in function of the benefits that they get. So these 19 case studies that we have in post-action, when you look at them, perhaps you may find that we have some structure that fits very well on this case, that you are analyzing. And we have some structures very similar. Yeah, let's look to these and let's try to have a better conversation with the authorities by showing it a bit, but you need an approach. You need something that unofficial, just to first step. It's up to you a discussion with the authorities to move forward, with the support of this work from the construction. Because at the end of the day, I think this is funded by the European Commission and this should be also as an output to feed the real economy. So this is the idea. Okay, thank you very much for your valuable support and interest in our construction, mainly to decision-makers who I am addressing. Thank you very much. Head up for the presentation of the first discussion here and there was positive, let's say, feedback for going on in this, let's say, third product which is a short product, but it is aimed at people, all owners or asset managers, I should say. And I would appreciate your comments here and maybe Carlos we had some discussion in the break which I appreciated very much and since you are a person who is a person or colleague so maybe if you want to say some words based on our discussion which was very fruitful. Very short. In my opinion, I believe that the focus in fact is not really on our capacity ability to initiate contracts or levels of inspections, the period of inspection because in fact, it's not that easy to, in my opinion, to renew these kind of things. Without talking about level of service without our duties regarding the inspections and regarding inventory. All this converge to the needs or repair, the needs of having a demonstrated performance. In fact, the key is the performance. Not that important if to control performance we need to go to the breach each two years or each four years. In fact, if you have remote controlling, if you are demonstrating that you are controlling and in fact you are controlling your performance and you are delivering the contract performance, you are complying with the contract and also in the end of the day in interest, as I said yesterday is how much you are paying to maintain your structures the specified levels of quality and this is the target of the grant. The grant in fact, the concern is that the concessionary delivering the infrastructure in the specified levels of quality to the clients or not because they are effective, they are managing a straight contract with the state. In fact, wondering if you have this kind of system for all the network if you can monitor all the network, not only bridges all the structures and in fact you can, I believe that you can be able to what perhaps the state will say to you ok guys, if you are controlling not by visual inspections each two four years, but you are controlling by continuous censoring perhaps say ok the risk is always on your side and you should always demonstrate that you are delivering the specified and required quality and I think that in fact the focus is always in your ability to anticipate problems and there you can save money not only in question of contracting or in negotiating contract Can I just reply very clear comment? I will just say this I think we need to move forward in a very active level from a reactive approach to a proactive approach and I am sure that perhaps not so early but this is the future, the way I envision is that these tools that you are developing might help clearly that when I say that these costs related with the inspections and is a part of the total cost but I am sure that if you have a proactive approach it will be much more efficient in these expenses. For example a very clear example you have an expansion every five years you went there in the next street there was a severe event and there was some flow whatever there was some pure settlements whatever so the next inspection might be four years and half if this is only based on the pre-alive inspections perhaps when you go there again the severity of the repair will be much higher than if you have something that but also this is not only I think not only in terms of the cost repairs but also more proactive approach in the follow up of the structures yes so I don't know I am thinking about where it has 2,000 3,000 bridges thinking about rescheduling this type of inspections in a more proactive I am sure that you may save some money but more than me you are in a position to understand and of course the repairs because if you anticipate in a early stage this is like human body if you go to the doctor this is the main idea reactive from proactive I don't know what to say so for me to properly understand your main comment was in the direction of that we should not in the first place change the contract but work in the existing contract framework on the optimization of the reduction of the risks and costs do I understand right? yes because what is in fact the first interest to know what is happening with your structures is you is the structure manager is the owner the owner is very interested to understand what is happening today so when you are saying that you reach a negotiation and then is that going to the bridge 2 years you are now going each 5 as you said you can also anticipate there will not be exactly the best approach why? because perhaps something is happening now and you are not going there because you are saving some money not going in the next year but going in the next 4 years and something wrong is happening you can replace the inspection program the shadow inspections by continuous monitoring it is a good approach if you are down but you are controlling and you are knowing what is happening you will have the ability to anticipate actions and in fact to go proactively as you said and that is the approach as well we know our structures the best we can have and the best we can save money can I? yes just for curiosity I don't want to so this might be sensitive this is not my intention to know but as you see if I understood correctly the authorities the only not the only but many requests that they ask me is mainly about warranty a specific level of functionality and performance and that is up to you to decide how you warranty is there is a control plan and in fact when you are obliged to go for instance you have a shadow and by contract you are obliged to serve each bridge let's say each 4 years the payment each 4 years and then you prepare a shadow and in fact we do each year we have a plan I am talking about with not the analysis for years depends on the bridge so there is a level of inspection in fact you are programming if you have a thousand bridges and if you go to inspect each 4 years so you program to inspect 250 each year but you should demonstrate by a report that you are you have been doing this and what results because important is to report quality additional because you should you should you should be compliant with the contract in fact it is up to you to say what if you have problems in the payment in the bridges what do you have program in terms of investment to book the bridges in the right level of compliance the payments whatever but if you can change say we are not now going each 4 years we are now retiring in continuous that in my view should be could be quite easily understandable by the grantor the grantor say maybe this is better then we go there each 4 years maybe you are controlling better your bridges you have the best control I think that this kind of approach I believe that grantor will be sensible okay so you see this frame and in a good direction for what you want what you need as a concession I am not saying that this is perfect far from that I believe that all the owners he is actually opening he wants to open for alternative solutions not only fix solutions alternative solutions which would be even more beneficial so it should be an opening very strict solutions and your document is also going according to me towards that direction so it is not contradictory and the project also is going into that direction so there are some different views and what Carlos said it is good if you have let's say through internet online or you are at home and you check 250 bridges or 1000 bridges so you have a control center and so on so you are monitoring representative bridges so there are different solutions so you know you have a model as we discussed the graduation model and you know that after 3-4 years I expect to put some money in 50 of those bridges so this is very important for the asset manager to know that after 4 years he has to put a lot of money to let's say to requalify or to upgrade a number of those bridges so he can plan, he knows when the money is not now it's after 3 years or something so he needs the graduation models for universities and so on he has the designer who helps him to measure the right things to have to put the threshold which is very important the threshold is something very important so this is an interesting discussion I think so is there maybe somebody else from the audience who would like to add something on that to put it in his opinion what is the experience from the United States similar or richer experience do you think the project is in the right direction or if I may give you the word I guess the difference is for example let's say the gates of California all bridges I mean are owned by the state of California and then they clearly understand the benefits of having because they are in addition to you know normal as a chance system that are put on in areas where there are no railways they are the owners they understand the benefit they create their own grants for universities for example to investigate specific problems and they use whatever instrumentation they have and all the understanding of the problems of the bridges for their long-term plans for maintenance for rehabilitation or repairs or whatever so it's a little bit different from the case I'm listening here but the point is that in the case of you pointed the concessionary is bound by a contract and if I understand right the use, the benefit of SHM is in the sense that you can optimize whatever resources you have monetary resources you have to keep up this infrastructure running so how for example if you have a contract that let's say it requires you to go agree so often to this bridge how do you just I mean I know you have instrumentation and that's how you justify that do you do it directly or it's just at your own let's say initially you don't indicate that approval how that is happening because that's what I can see what here it was putting on that if anyone can start something like that let's say I am a concessionary and I want to take advantage of the benefits of SHM to reduce these visual inspections and that's a direct benefit but will they how you call it grantor will approve that how do you get to that point maybe you still need to do that you need to justify and that is where this framework that you are working here will support that because you have investigated all of these you have come up to a point that you are putting all these pilots just as examples that can be used for that justification I guess thank you Mauricio for this comment of the not only flexibility to do more things but also the charity which is very important I would like to have something to share on that I have a question to the concessionaries if I can ask a line up with this how you see how you see very clear a payback to you when using this how what is the payback to you yes so you decide strategically in the in the executive board we will have a budget specifically for this and we will move forward strategically on this we will spend money investing in an infrastructure or what is in the long run the payback very clearly what is the payback without vague ideas in my opinion the payback is always in the more informed decisions all this converges to decision making in fact the best information you have the best you can decide for the question as you know for instance the rosiria bridge we were not bound to monitor that bridge it was volunteer for the reason at the moment and why because you know that is a big structure so we decided at the very first moment it is really important in the future to have more information and as we know all the information you need to decide not coming from the the monitoring you have installed you also need to go there to inspect the bridge so this is a balance and all this converges to information gathering the payback is more informed decisions better decisions and the best application to your resources if you know when to invest the money it is also a very good payback because you know you have also the certainty or some kind of certainty when we invest your money and so on so this is also the kind of payback I think by million applying a million deploy more the best than a million deploy the question of managing of the money you are understanding what will be happening as the longest period you can program in fact all this discussion starts not to make a reaction plan as you know in the past all the owners as a sort of reaction plan is the money to be deployed in the next few years and all the owners now is looking after deploying programs 5, 10, 20 years and to have a plan 20 years you must understand you must understand your degradation boss you must go deeper on the study how can you forecast that you will be intervening in the bridge within 20 years with your information you are getting in the sensors or the information you are getting in the visual inspections not enough so the question is you must get all this information to prepare models to understand how things is the behavior of the bridge is the behavior of concrete whatever and as you know every single bridge are different from the avenue you can have a bridge with problems here and 20 meters away bridge without problems so the question is you must understand the mechanisms chemical mechanisms whatever but the question is to understand what will be the best measure you know also that for instance if you are applying today some relative measures maybe that can avoid you to deploy in 5 years a huge repair so perhaps if you apply relative measures each 5 years perhaps you can postpone the major works 10 years and that's mine now you were better so it's a very hot discussion I have to run all over the room and probably as a moderator I think I'm very glad probably my personality creates a lot of discussion but you should always keep in mind that the moderator can also stop the session I have some dictatorial authority so before you give me Sebastian this authority you should be very careful but I can give you the board thank you very much wait when we address the payback I think the clear message and the source of the cost is after the cost organization and we are requested and the project is to create industrial competitiveness so it is about in the general level more efficient management the bridges specifically of the built environment and this goes to the creation of industrial value and industrial impact and higher revenues even profits but it should also go in the perspective of of society it should also go to society so maybe just add some clarity on the questioning post a very brief addition to what has been discussed here because we have seen in Ireland in projects where we have monitored bridges one is all these monitoring had to be a part of the contractual agreement with the owner so if the county council owns a bridge everything has to be a part of this contract on a case by case basis and in terms of payback maybe implicitly procedure but in some instances this is related to the insurance aspects that is a part of the bridge especially when you are repairing the bridge and there the payback is sometimes when the county council the engineer and the insurance companies are talking together for a specific project it can be decided that health monitoring is giving you more information so that the county council can safely claim back the insurance from the insurance company I am not going into the details to not like diverge information there but I think the insurance aspect should be a part of it yes thank you so there is an immediate reaction yes thank you very much yes I think what you said is important which is the necessity of information but the insurance aspect I am sure that is a big issue for this process we need to warrant the infrastructure part so I think this is something important as you are saying better information better knowledge, better decision perhaps lower risk lower risk over insurance levels preventable levels all of these are costs but as you said in Ireland so monitoring you are saying if the concession wants to use it needs to be included in the contract structure health monitoring needs to be included in the contract A, their contractual obliged to do so B, some of the monitoring exists B, some of the monitoring will be interpreted as modification to the structure so by introducing a monitoring system a modification is being done to the structure and for that you have to ensure that contractually you are ensuring that the bridge will not be to risks that are not there and it just doesn't go in terms of we are making a hole in the bridge but who is responsible for the safety on the bridge during the time of implementing the monitoring system is it the owner is it the engineer so these kind of things have to be successful before we go in this is an important but of course detail who is responsible for the implementation what is the purpose because sometimes you have for research, proposals structure and monitoring you also have to ask for permission to do that you have a master thesis for students you have to ask for permission for the university and so on so we are merging the session which is lesson learned and this is also by you Helder it's the next session and also by you Sebastian and maybe by merging these both sessions you would like to say something about the lessons learned and we have some conclusion part of this discussion today we have something prepared I think it's a good idea if you present it now and we have it together with the discussion I will not extend too much this closing session now for my point of view and as a promoter of this initiative of Indus University I will basically address knowledge roots and thank you so basically I welcome first of all although I would like to say my head to show this event that I should acknowledge more people first of all one time as well which is the Executive Board Member of Prisa it was yesterday European session and I am very happy that he was able to be here and in fact he's been a person very sensitive to this issue of the world of information and monitoring strategies but also more people from Prisa they support the organization of this event so all these supporting that in terms of the renewed coffee breaks, the lunches whatever they support to do this also all people from the hotel so the staff here is that's important for the coffee breaks lunches and also a special welcome to these external guests so this is a list of people that are happy to join this event so let's say these are people that are not part of this work in group of the cost action I would like to acknowledge all your contributions, your discussions I will be very happy to keep this discussion on going so you know me, these people you have the contacts website, official website this session will be put available with these lectures that you presented look at them again come back to us, make questions whatever you feel that you should ask just take benefit of this lecture so I would like to acknowledge your presence and ok, thank you very much for your valuable support and interest and our cost action and I tried to do as much as possible to put all your feedbacks in a very brief document and I will come back to you so these external guest lists ok? I will see you later in the email me and Span to give a little bit more some guides for the future and also try to keep these contacts for the future between us because maybe I keep saying this we are trying to give you something but with your support it's become more effective in the real world ok? so basically my lessons that I learned during these two days is that we are still far from a real common vocabulary between decision makers and researchers but we should keep these type of events more frequent and more actively from the decision makers point of view so we get more interested but we researchers should be also more flexible going out of our comfort zone and try to see their views as we had this short discussion on this proposal it was very fulfilled to see that there are some a great zone to understand what they think, what we are proposing so this is something that looking forward we may have an ex-opportunity to meet again and keep this discussion forward ok? on my name and we are from Brizna and we are from the Indus Innovation Days, thank you very much and I give the word to Sebastian Thank you very much for the words Heller a few thoughts as it's learned I think they have been also part already of my starting presentation today I may have a more optimistic perspective in terms of how we progress I think this was an important event to build a common understanding between our researchers or between us as researchers between industry and especially between operators and concessionaries and owners of infrastructure mainly represented by Brizna here in this workshop so I think we have come quite far and there is a solid basis of mutual understanding and this is very important for me and then I think with this workshop there is a clear road and clear measures of how to proceed and in the perspective of a citation I used in the first cost action meeting it was called by Henry Ford coming together at the beginning staying together in the progress and working together with success so in this perspective I would especially thank Heller who has been I think I had it I said it before but it was a shift throughout the action and was the main driver between or towards this event to an industry innovation day we had actually two days one and a half so and of course including the organization of this event and I also would like to acknowledge who has been extremely supportive and also the organization of this event and I would I would like to continue and to stay in touch and to work with you together because this is success thank you very much so this was the main event but I should also thank some more people Henry Bruske supporting this event in the background also Liene who is outside a big thank you for them of course we need to inform you how we should or how we go on to a certain extent this is fine especially for discussions so the focus of the afternoon is basically that we in the cost action discuss how we can take up the developments and how we plan to towards the end of the cost action it's coming and so we need a solid plan and we need to incorporate what we have learned today so this is the challenge for the afternoon sessions we have two rooms we have two rooms for that and I would suggest that there is one group around the case studies Jochen will lead this group then another group around the standardization activities led by the matrix and we also can talk about the dissemination the third group and then maybe just after a small serious committee meeting so when we are completely open and we take it very very openly so if anybody wants to join to listen to contribute please join us and from now let's have the lunch break