 Thank you for this introduction. And I will try to set the stage for the discussions this morning. I can go back one slide. Sudeer and me will both speak about innovation. I will take quite a point from an academic university perspective, Sudeer from a utility perspective. And most of the things I'm going to state here are general terms. I know that many of my generalizations I will make in specific cases don't work. So I want to warn those people who don't know me too much, but I like to just make general blunt statements. Starting with innovation. My definition and my turn of innovation is the original one, which was set out by Schumpeter, a well-known economist, where inventions are ideas which are made manifest. And that's what most of us are doing. And innovation is only happening when they're also successfully in practice. And I emphasize that because innovation is not just having a new tool, a new technique, but also making sure that it relates to market, it relates to economy, and all kind of other aspects. The example I always use, Doralover, did a very nice invention, which they patented in 67 for a membrane bioreactor. It in the end only led to the real innovation after Yamamoto thought, well, we better throw these membrane systems inside the bioreactor instead of having them outside, leading to enough reduction in cost and management aspects to let MBRs become a full-scale technology for municipal treatment. My view on innovation is to need a few drivers. And not surprisingly, as a scientist, academics, what's really needed is curiosity. Only through curiosity, you find new things. Because then you happen to explore unexpected things. There needs to be awareness of technological challenges, and there needs to be awareness of what market to demand. And an example from our laboratory, we're very much curious how bacteria can survive in saturated soda in lakes in Siberia. High pH, high soda content. And we knew that biogas needs to be disulfurized, and that could be very well done by these bacteria. And we had contact with parks, and the technology has been developed. But there's no market in the biogas market. The innovation came, and we realized that on the gas fields in Canada for the disulfurization, there's a really need for disulfurization. And there, the innovation in the end was there. And the technology is then used. So innovation is a kind of knowledge cycle in the universities, curiosity-driven research, generating knowledge. We need some people who can bridge that knowledge from universities with the problems from practice. And if these bridges are there, we can come to innovation. For me, a university is not an innovative institute. It's an institute which generates knowledge, which might generate inventions. Innovations only arises once there is collaboration and interaction with the field. And what's needed for that is to get rid of these still very much present models for innovation, which are linear. There's somehow, of course, left on the top is an American picture. On the bottom, it's more European picture, but there's money going in in the US. Of course, also in Europe, by the way, there's basic research, applied research, and in the end, the product rolls out, and society might benefit. The big problem is here is that in these kind of models, market and universities don't talk to each other. And you cannot visualize where things go wrong. For me, this model, I cannot take the time to explain it in detail, but works much better, where there's a need for interactions between engineers, scientists, product developers, and market people, and different interaction cycles. We don't need all the time to talk all the time together, but it should be recognized. And many of the innovations, many of the inventions, I should say, which feel have some lack here in communication between the different areas. And what's also important, we need different partners, but we need one person who somehow has the entrepreneurship, the leadership, who is respected by the different partners, and we can motivate and drive the different partners. And that can be someone from one of the different partners, but if you have four people, four institutes working together and they have four equal-says, innovation is not going to work because there will be a lot of meetings and discussions instead of making progress. The errors which you can highlight with this is the error when science doesn't communicate with business. That means there's scientific research, both in the hard sciences and the soft sciences, and also in the water field, you see this quite often. There's a need to do things and to improve things and to go better. And examples here, but there's in the end no market, and examples here are energy and resource recovery, decentralized systems, Ford Osmosis systems, microbial fuel cells, and a few others. All these systems, they are very nice, they are very bright, but they lack the input of what is needed in the market to bring them in. It's a good feeling where people are busy but not solid economy or market-driven aspects. And that's needed because if you don't recognize that, you don't improve your system to be capable to really deal in the market. For decentralized systems, for instance, that's going on already for decennia, decades, there's no real advantage. They are more expensive than the existing systems in Europe. I don't say it everywhere in the world, but in Europe, they are more expensive than the existing systems. There's no real break to in it. They are very complicated, often compared to the real centralized systems. There is a very good example that's called the pharma filter. It's a decentralized system for hospital wastewater treatment. This system has not been developed to treat hospital wastewater. This system has been developed because hospitals want to improve their overall logistics inside the hospital which require them to include a wastewater plant. So it came out of an other benefit inside the hospital combined with treatment which captures nicely all the medical and other compounds but which then generates the innovation. The other big system error which often occurs is that there's no communication between the technology and the societal needs. So society has needs. They are sometimes recognized, but also engineers can become extremely interested in the sort of technology. Try to push it and push it. It's a very much technology push understanding but not seeing where the advantage and example I hear use is the membrane bioreactor, I mentioned before. It has been very hyped. And I don't say that membrane bioreactor, by the way, should not be used or have no use at all. But in the context of big, large-scale municipal wastewater treatment plans, again with very much focus on Nordic countries, these installations, they have a higher cost to require more energy, more chemicals, are more complex than the existing facilities. And they give an effluent quality but what you see in Europe and most places, there's been a lot of research and development in the NBRs. If you look in the field, there's a lot of application of filtration systems if you want to reach a very good effluent quality and there's been very limited research on all these media filtration, et cetera, because they were already known, by the way, from drinking what application needed to be adapted. This is also showing here the NBR hype from the NBR website. The number of installations included, and you see that after a lot of early enthusiasm, the number of installations being installed over the last years is clearly declining. Very brief on arable grinder sludge, again not telling it, it takes time to develop a product. Arable grinder sludge, we started in 1995, the first full-scale municipal installation start construction 2010, 15 years later. And one or two years later, it was fully operational. But after that, it's going, I think, relatively quick because in the last five years, there's about 50 plans in almost all continents in operation and even in the US now, almost in operation. And there's a whole range under construction. And this is simple because these plans need only about 25, 30% of the space of a regular municipal treatment plant and the investment costs are in general about 20% lower than existing plants. So it's a clear advantage for the introduction and then it goes relatively quick. What are the successful factors of such development? It's a simple technology which can be explained in a short cartoon drawing without too much complexity. I think the development, the presence of the waterboard system in the Netherlands has been very good for developing this system quickly. It's the fact that we patented it, is a success factor, has been a success for it, not now in the market introduction, but during the development. That we could make a national research program between waterboards, consultants, TU Delft, where people committed for 10 years and not for one or two years in the development, 10 years without any go-no-go decision along it. And we only, after eight years, we were set in a symposium and then someone said, hey, but you have a public-private partnership system. And we didn't realize how our system was called, what we were focusing on developing the technology and getting it into the market and not how we were doing it. And that's also something which should be done much more often. And of course, there's one person as I said already who needs to have a lead there and that's in this case was not me, but Hela van der Roest from the eSphere. There are limitations for academics to be involved in this kind of exercise. We are evaluated too much on publications and citations. As a university professor, my business model is to have a promising technology because if I have a promising technology, I can sell my research projects and I can get grants. If I have a technology which is in practice, everybody tells me, oh, you don't need money anymore because it's already there. So as a university professor, it's not a good business model to develop something which ends up in practice. You better your whole career work on something which doesn't get there, but where everything, say, this is very promising. The third one is, and that's even more serious one, of course, if you develop something in your group, in your lab and you think about that idea and you have worked for a few years on it, it's very difficult to let the child go and you have to let loose as an academic and there's not good systems for that to entertain that or to stimulate that because typically professors have the attention to keep involved as much as possible, even try to develop it always in incubator inside the university. That's for some, technology is very good, but for other technologies, this will not work because you need the utilities to be involved and you cannot do that inside the university. So conclusions, important for innovation is partnering and having right leadership, not designated leadership, but natural leadership. Curiosity-driven research is needed to get really breakthrough innovations and very good definitions of where the problem is in your invention and solve that problem and not try to show that it's a very good invention. And the last one, what should be needed is better academic evaluation criteria for your impact on society. Thank you.