 One issue is this issue of plans. Yesterday we heard an awful lot about planning and putting together the plans, et cetera. And I think that I mentioned to you on Monday that organizations that are very highly reliable spend a lot of time on plans. They try to plan for every kind of contingency. They develop protocols. They do scenario planning. You know, they develop policies because they want to preempt things going wrong. But by definition, plans can't manage the unexpected. Plans don't plan for unexpected events. And so there are two kinds of issues that I want to make with that. First of all, the issue is that, you know, plans can't handle what they don't expect. And it really does influence mindfulness in this kind of way. Plans embody certain expectations about how the world is going to unfold. And we have a tendency as human beings to look for information that confirms what we think is going to happen. Many organizational situations and many of the situations that you all face when you're in the field, when you're, you know, on an incident, etc., those situations are ambiguous. And we have a tendency with our minds to fill in the gaps and to see what we want to see. So plans can sometimes lead us to miss little small signals that things are developing or not going the way that we thought they were. So that's one point about plans. It's not to suggest that you don't do it. Plans, of course, are very important. But one thing is that they can make us more mindless. The other point is, and actually I guess I've got three points. The second point is that ordinary organizations oftentimes do not go back to their plans, their existing protocols, their standard operating procedures, and incorporate new learnings. High reliability organizations spend a lot of time revamping plans and protocols and standard operating procedures. Maybe that's normal for you all too in your units, but a lot of organizations don't do that. They have plans that have been around for years and they don't seem to update them. Third point. We're not so much concerned with plans. We're more concerned with the planning process. We've been talking about process and this idea that this is a process of practices and policies or principles that have to be continually enacted over and over. Some organizations do mindful planning. Other organizations do mindless planning. Mindless planning would be just having a checklist and going down and saying, yeah, we got that, we got that, we got that, without doing a very rich discussion or a planning process that takes into account a lot of different kinds of views, a lot of different stakeholders. Yesterday we heard Fred Wetzel talking about, and we heard the people at the last part of the day as well, talking about the planning process involving many different stakeholders in that process, trying to figure out what could possibly go wrong. There was a richness to that process that really gave them a sense of these are the kinds of things that could come up, these are the kinds of things that could come up. There was a lot of input into that plan. If you've got an inflexible, hierarchical kind of planning process, it may lead to more mindlessness, not mindfulness. It's the process. Carl, do you want to add something on that? No. Okay. I just wanted to get up. If a process is handled mindfully, you're more likely to create a set of ideas that are richer and that may really have a lot of the contingencies that you're facing. You want to build that in. Second point I want to make is a couple of people ask me the question, well, you know, if we had as many resources as some of the organizations that you benchmark, wouldn't we be as reliable as well? Well, maybe, but maybe not. Here's my reasoning. High reliability is about design. It's not necessarily about resources in the traditional way of thinking about resources in terms of money. Sure. You need money for training and I understand that your training budgets are, you know, some of you are dealing with cuts or you're dealing with constraints, et cetera. High reliability organizations have those constraints too. For example, our understanding is that for carriers, they actually, their budgets have been pretty tight, especially on fuel. What does that mean? It means that they have to do more with less. They can't do as many of these training flights and practice flights as they want to. So that means that they've really got to pay attention to how are we going to get the most out of the training flights that we can do. My view is that it's not so much about resources, it's about design. Okay. And if it is about resources, it is about cognitive attention and time resources. It's about the time that it takes to build the rich network of communications that we heard about yesterday. You know, building, and I think Fred Wetzel and I think the people later on in the afternoon, and I'm sorry, I didn't catch everybody's name, but they talked about constructing this rich communication network. And that takes a lot of time. And somebody said, you know, it took us a lot of time. They talk about this respectful interaction. Establishing norms of respectful interaction takes time. It also takes forethought in terms of when you have a temporary group, it takes forethought to say, in this group we're going to interact respectfully, we're going to listen to everybody's ideas, etc. That's an issue of resources, but in a different way. It's a design issue in terms of establishing normative kinds of routines for analyzing the failures that have gone wrong, the small failures and large failures. Re-examining your procedures to incorporate new learnings. That's an issue of design, but it's also time, resources, attention. So when people say, you know, if we had unlimited resources, and I get this comment all the time when I'm working with doctors, nurses, etc., we don't have resources. And I'm sensitive to that. But it's not always an issue of just having more resources. It's having a desire, having the attention, putting the time into creating these designs that can help you be more reliable.