 which we could have worked more in integration between the two communities, I don't think this works. Is it switch on? These actions were about the value of information of structural monitoring, so there were two communities at the beginning, they still are here. vsega izvah, in vsega izgleda in vsega izgleda. Na primer naprej prejst, da so nekega, da so nekaj zelo pošličiti za integracij. Integracija nisem ne gleda. prejdu smo na vsem po vsem z vsem znikov. Tudi zelo sem na presentacijenju. Zelo smo na vsem znikov. Zelo smo na njih pošličenju. Zelo smo na vsem znikov. Zelo smo na dana v Amsterdamu, v Stardanice, vsem vsem vsem tudi. Belkaj doličenje, da smo vsem vsem izgleda. In je da razlepo meatballsnega paljeva je, da neč so zelo tebe ljude in jasno svoje folkori začelem značiti, da ima vse mulheresne konceptie. Paj, za što si je potem, zelo neko zelo. Preprilok je pa to, da vse zelo broj Forum menej zelo. In maybe, I don't know, using some training school for participants, training school are not just for PhD students. I attended the first training school and I learned from that. Then I understand that many of us don't have time to really study many things. But a first step could have been that, could have been important, I think. Ok. Who wants to take up this point from the panel? It's just my idea that there is someone else that thinks that this didn't happen and could have been good. Can you take a microphone? Some proposal about how we could have done that. My perspective would be that we may have not fully achieved this, as you say, but I think we have triggered the interest of, especially the structural health monitoring community. And my perspective would be in this sense that it takes just time. So that the common understanding grows and has time to grow. I think that in academia, for the academic people, I think this is something that is generally, and it's also difficult to do because you are in the SAGM community, you publish in the journal for SAGM. I mentioned today this example, you have the same A, and it means something different in one community than the other. Now we agree on something jointly, but then if you go to your community where you make your living, let's say, you still have to speak their language, otherwise they will not understand you. But in my experience it's typically more fruitful to come together in, so it seems to me that coming together is more difficult in academia than actually in practice, because in practice when companies, organizations actually try to use these things and they have to use different tools, they are really forced to do it. And then they have, but I also don't have the answer how to, I mean, as you say, people have to, should attend the school, we should try to train the participants, but I'm not sure if you can make them afterwards go back and use, I mean, one thing is to be able to at least understand that the other community has different immunologies and what if they say, you know, indicator it means something else than if it's in my community, to be able to really develop a common language seems... More on the, how to say, more related to the work inside the action rather than outside. I think Jochen this morning said at the beginning we had the 20... No, I don't know, they didn't say the number. We have many proposals for case studies, but then the number reduced. So probably there were many reasons why not all the case studies arrived to the end. But I'm sure that some of these case studies didn't arrive at the end because people didn't have the tool and they didn't have the tool because they didn't understand the language or did the method or whatever. I actually was forced to understand the prior preposterior and so on by Piotr, who is there, we had several discussions in the first year of the action and it was really, really tough for me to understand, but in the end arguing with Piotr, I was able. But if he didn't force me, push me to do this, I would have never done that. Well, of course now Francesco is doing this PhD on this topic, so I had some chances. But I understand that if there are no chances, just participating, attending to the meeting wouldn't have been enough. And I think this goes also along the lines that I criticized. We had a few training schools, just two towards the end. I agree. So we should have done this much earlier. You're a success story then. I'm always a success story. So, Ellen, please. But I wonder, rather than a shortcoming, is that actually a strength of the action that we often judge pieces of work like this, not only on the work that was completed and the volume of work that was completed, but on how well we understand the future work that needs to be completed. And to some extent I wonder, is that actually a success story here that with all of the work which has been done, that some really key questions and actions for how this can really be taken forward in the next phase have now been identified. Because I know from the context of the STSMs, I think that they were hugely successful and they were so vast and covered so many topics. But I'm always conscious of, Helder and I have had discussions about this, I'm with you, Sebastian, about we wanted more industry participation in the STSMs and that's a way to get people talking in common language. But that said, the STSMs which were completed were really very valuable. But in the next phase, maybe we might identify, okay, now is the time to get the message, to get the interaction with the industry going and to make that a higher priority maybe in the next evolution. So to some extent I feel that some of these questions which have arisen today about future work is actually really positive because four years ago when we started this action, none of those questions were circulating. So that's actually, you know, has been a success story. There's a magnetic pole here on the microphone. A magnetic? Well, I think it's fundamentally difficult to press the interaction through. It's not true. It has to be provoked somehow, slowly and surely persistently. And to that I think that, well, I agree with Alan, that I think it has rather been somewhat successful. I saw a turning point at the workshop in Munich some time ago where we succeeded really well in getting a lot of different perspectives up on the wall at the same time. And there were some, I would not say heated discussions, but there were some more frank discussions. Up until that point in Munich, when people were saying something, everybody would be nodding and confirming that they understand everything. And this is just the way we are. We want to be positive. People are like that. Humans are like that. We would like to be confirmative. And then slowly we will try to figure out what is really being said and figure out also to what extent we agree with what is being said. It's a slow process. It's difficult to force through. And I'm more of the opinion of Alan. We are positive people. We come from small countries, minorities, unlike the other people in the panel. And we are modest. Do you want to say? If I may have to the entropy of the discussion. And now from someone outside of his expertise on Beijing probabilistic and all these dense issues of mathematical approach, if I can say something that could be explored further or in the other way around, that was not so explored during the construction, it depends on the perspective that people want to see it. One of the things that from a decision maker is highly important, is assessing and quantifying these consequences. I remember a presentation from Michael on a course that they attended once. You talk about direct costs and indirect costs. And that indirect costs can go up to an order of two, three of the direct costs, for example. Which I think is something that, if I look to the formulation of the preposterior analysis, if you change these consequences, you change completely your, let's say, optimum or the benefit solution. And something that I will put here for consideration in the future, I think it is missing here for developing further an area that is economics. And then we will go on to the indirect cost assessment. For example, the collapse of this bridge in Italy. So a very important link in general. What were the implications of these indirect costs in the daily life of the people, now I need to change my routine, the local commerce, all these quantifications, not only from the probabilistic side, in the risk formula, but also on the costs that is multiplying these risk, these probability. I think it should be, from an operator or concessioner point of view, it will be very efficient to attract a lot of attention that these costs are being also analyzed more efficiently. I know that it might be very difficult, but for sure maybe it is missing for the future, a component here, which is economics. We have said some discussed nothing related to the structure, but the impact on the societal and the environmental. This is a comment from my perspective in terms of the owner or the concessioner that is responsible for managing 2,000 bridges and if one of them collapse, what would be the costs? And this plays a big role in the decision on your prep or student analysis. Should I do this, should I do that? You never will get reliable, not reliable, but a strong approach if you don't have this cost properly calculated. So this is a provoke question. Is it a question to someone? I think we should also engage with the audience. Samo as comments. Any comments, questions you would like to ask? Analyzing costs of failure of a bridge with three parameters. Human risk, because you take a detour route, you might make 30 kilometers more, so you have another human risk and then it depends on the number of vehicles which are on the bridge, not only the span length of the bridge is not the only parameter which is affecting that. So there are some very interesting studies, especially in the UK, which are dealing with this. And I think that it can be implemented. Maybe this parameter is missing, but it can be implemented. There are studies and there is a possibility to deal with. But I think that this point is a valid point. Me measuring direct consequences is probably relatively straightforward, but I think that understanding and quantification of indirect consequences is a task for economists. We don't have really economists in this cost action. And probably it was good that we didn't have economists, because if we think about already these different engineering communities having to find the common language is already the challenge. And I'm not sure if we would have had here a group of economists. It would have been interesting for some discussions, but maybe it would have been too much of a challenge for this cost action. But I know that organizations that run and operate these infrastructure systems they have not a very good understanding of what is the cost of these things and different economists indirect cost, and different economists give very different answers to the question. So I think that this is so it's a very relevant question. I'm also not sure to what degree we as engineers can actually contribute. We try to do it because we are the ones that end up in these organizations that make the decisions and so if we don't have answers from economists we come up with our own models. But maybe this is really a challenge that should be posed to the economists and they should give answers to that. I think they have not their main interest. Just a remark in Dimitris as he mentioned if you think about these executive boardings of these big companies the majority of them are economics or lawyers. I know. I know, but I'm trying to say that also to help to attract their attention this perspective or at least this input. I'm not saying that economists should be here from the beginning to the end of the formulation of the problem. I think it's an input that is fundamental for catching properly their interest on what we are doing here from the Bayesian and probability perspective and asset management. I think what you are calling for is a more a bigger scope for the system which you are actually trying to represent and I think the answer also is resilience. So what you really need to do is that you need to look at the coupled system of the hardware the infrastructure or whatever it is that is being monitored and then you need to set it in the organizational context modeling the provision benefit achieved from the infrastructure system and the capacity building that facilitates for the system in a larger context and it's difficult to try to put the boundaries on the system and try to model all the interdependences in these combined regulatory societal governance and the hardware the infrastructure system and there is a lot of research going on on that and engineers are deeply involved so I think this will be the place where the things will melt together and structural health monitoring or whatever active means for governance which is essentially what monitoring is it's just a means of picking up information about the system it could also be monitoring of agents in society so we can monitor on the exposure side we can monitor on the structural response side we can monitor anything the service output it's a governance with the feedback loop so based on what we monitor we can make decisions to tune the system performance in any of these dimensions and it's evolving but I think that there's still a lot of work to be done and especially if we want to succeed in this I see a huge challenge for the construction industry and those working with the built environment and that is really to facilitate that technology for 0.0 or 5.0 can get into the game because the way we have been running our business in the construction industry is well there's not much positive to say about it it's simply like medieval times in the way we are approaching the management of the built environment a structure which has been built like two years ago it will be hardly possible to find any base information about the structure we really need to facilitate that technology can get into the game and as I've said at a couple of smaller workshops here lately I think if we don't do it we may risk or it may be actually it may be positive but we could see actors like Amazon or Google simply taking over our business because they are the technology providers they can do it they can do all these things which we are very reluctant to introduce into the management of the built environment so to do that maybe we should start thinking about what's next how can we come all together to work on it and how can we provide us the mean to do that so what type of project can we put up all together to to have the the funds to do that to do research on this topic so I think the next step we we should let's discuss about the next steps what are the ideas and what would be the best ways to proceed I think that what Michael said I think this digitization that is now happening because it's as you said as of now not much still not very much seen in practice but there's now quite a lot of money spent on this digitization of the construction industry and the built environment and maybe that is a huge amount of money potentially that might be a possibility that we try to go in this direction because monitoring is closely linked it doesn't make our tasks much easier if but BIM is or all these related topics that might be an angle of how we, one possible angle of how we can try to sell that what we're doing is a part of that how do we make better use of the information that is now collected maybe our industrial advisory board can suggest something this is where the money come some there are a few things that come into this picture one thing if we have a model that covers not only the engineering part but also the social sciences then the costs would be interesting for insurance companies if we can tell them this is our model give us the costs we will get it if you are looking for the costs for example of the loss of life there are statistics you can have that an integrated model would be for the insurance and for the digitization I was in Beijing last October and on a big ISO meeting they have established a new group on BIM which will bring a new code and Chinese are leading that and in China if you have a project more than 10 million euro of size it has to be BIM in Germany if you go for in Japan it has to be BIM so BIM is a model so this would be our playground to try to bring it we could deliver to them not say to us but we could use their information all our models are lacking good data so if we get the good data from another community wonderful we could give them the algorithms just in the comments which have been made and I am conscious of what Helder said and what Michael said and I think that somebody earlier on today spoke about this approach and a top down approach and I think that we as engineers all too often fall into this bottom up approach and we don't think about the organizational structures or the governance structures as Michael referred to so I think there is an opportunity for us in that space and this goes back to the point of working with insurance companies or governments or owners of big infrastructure to not just look at the nuts and bolts of the bottom up approach but actually to consider working at both levels and then I think we come up with I know somebody you said today we are never going to have the complete model and I agree with you but we move closer to that point where we get a synergy between the various considerations which really brings out the value of information in this space and I think that whilst I agree with the point about BIM again that is bottom up we are thinking as engineers about the bottom up approach we are not thinking from the top down and merging the two we just need to broaden our perspectives out a little bit to facilitate that kind of thinking at the kind of organizational level I think because that is the key if you are a national authority who has given a concession to a concessionaire we have to give the metrics that they understand in terms of performance of the network that the operators have to live up to and then demonstrate how with the bottom up approach they can validate those metrics so I think there is an important symbiosis there Yes, I think it is if you look to this subject outside Beijing update in probably perhaps it is one of the most densest subjects in mathematics maybe so imagine now for someone that even though it just needs to decide but it is quite hard in the bottom look to this I don't I don't have time to read this but as I said this is the bottom line so this is the ground so this is where things are built in a sustainable approach and robust but then we cannot we need also I think also that was the suggestion for these two special sessions on case studies please keep one third of your paper to communicate with these people in a more tangible way so they can understand what you are trying to say and not using very technical terms but I always believe that people are convinced by the argument not because we are forcing people to do things so if you are able to to present convincing arguments about a very convincing case study on a specific structure I think this thing takes time as well because from my experience you need to put yourself in their perspective to write properly a paper for this for example I am for example on this guide for operators despite the fact that I am trying just to keep to five pages it's very hard to write it because I am not writing to myself I am writing to other people so you need to move outside of your comfortable zone and try to communicate for them and this is something that we should do more and more not forgetting what is in the bottom but we should but depends on the perspective I don't know if you are an academic and you are pushed to write papers and the funding it's your priority but in this case if you are dealing with real structures and they are there and someone are responsible for their management we as experts should spare some time to help them to push this knowledge on their benefit and for this and as Maria starts in the beginning for example this different vocabulary needs to be better standardized or better communication I think it's also a matter of communication sometimes things are here and people don't know that they are available because we are not able to communicate this work for the real world this is my experience from this point of view we did a great job with respect to the outside because the three guidelines that the working group 5 are preparing are exactly what the word outside needs because they cover the three levels that we wanted to cover science industry and policy makers we did a great job from that point of view and which is not common in another construction there is not the same approach so and I think it will be very very useful because policy makers at the end today are the ones that have the money that decides they really have to understand so this is a great success I think of the action one could wonder so what happens what happens next what is the next action of this action is another action that should be made in the future I am sure we will see several actions related to resilience of different types of systems the thing is that addressing resilience of systems things become a little bit specific if we are looking at general traffic infrastructure energy provision distribution systems communication systems it would be different audiences all together so I am not sure that this is a way to go in this group what I could what I could see a merit in is the challenge would be for me the transition of the construction industry from now to technology 4.0 what does this transition comprise what is it we need to move in order to facilitate for technology in the management of the digital environment and the concept of digital twins so we all know this but what is it really that we need and how can we what are the constituents that would facilitate that we would be able to manage the build environment in the context of society in the future and I think this is a worthy expenditure of time it is desperately needed because we don't know it and if we don't know it then who should who would know it I think we are as central as anybody can be in this business so I could definitely recommend to consider and I also think that it can be sold very well to the European Commission this type of activity there is another tangible tangible outcome which I also would recommend strongly and that is that we have had several courses within the action dedicated to different aspects of value of decision ranking on let's say collection of information for the management of the build environment infrastructure systems or structures in particular and I think that it would be a relatively easy thing to convert those course activities to maybe one module one week or 10 day module which could be anchored like permanently in the continuing education and advanced school of the joint committee that would be a lasting at least as long as it lasts but it would be it would be something and we are all pointing to the fact that we need education much more education so that might be something thank you very much for the very concrete ideas which we should follow up also building our ideas coming back to this community the project is running still for more than two months and I think now we have time challenge and then we need to come towards an end of this discussion so I think we should close the first day of the final conference which was basically about the of summing up the second day is rather focused on what we still need to do so that we all that we can disseminate what we have done and what we have produced so in this way I am concluding the first day of this final TO-1402 conference thank you very much