 So I'd like to first introduce this concept and idea. This was during one of the steering commutes, I think it was in Dublin, that we came across with this idea that we should also try to address an audience that we don't focus too much, which is the operators and the concessionaries and the owners. So since that workshop in Dublin we have been maturing on this and what I will present it is basically the fundamental idea and the concept of this document. So I'm leading this document mainly from the point of view of the Innovation Committee. It was a contribution of the Innovation Committee. By the time I invited Elmwood Wenzel to participate in this document, basically because since we want to focus on these audience operators and concessionaries, people with a lot of experience with these people are highly valuable to produce, let's say, an efficient document to be disseminated in the future. And then Sebastian as well, because I think to balance this scientific approach with a practical point of view, I think we have a nice team to present this document. So basically I will just present the concept and the idea. As I said, this document is undergoing. Why we need, in my point of view, these guide for operators, is that in fact we are doing research and developing our scientific knowledge on real structures. It's not only on the labs or in the computers, software. These structures are in the field. So every day we use them and some people are responsible for their management. And that responsibility, it's assumed from some decision-makers. So they sign some contracts and they are responsible for their maintenance. But as Elmut said in this presentation, these decision-makers are mainly lawyers or economists and at all they are probabilistic-based people. So as we as experts, this community, this network, I think since we should also keep thinking that at the end all these structures that we aim to apply, the value of information, theory is in field, we have this obligation as well, try to push a document that is written to a level that is for a non-expert audience. As Elmut said and I repeat, that perhaps an economist can understand something about it or a lawyer or whatever. So that was the fundamental idea of producing these guide for operators on top of these two previous guidelines that has been presented by Sebastian Antimetris. So then, what was the idea of framing these documents on the guidelines? So I put here an idea, how I see it from my perspective. So we have these three guidelines, which I think that from the left to the right, the level of detail decrease. So the first one, which was presented by Sebastian, is very deep, very dense from a mathematical point of view. The guide for a practice engineer is less, a little bit more readable, let's say, for people that want to get into the subject, they want to learn, they want to know what are the basic tools. And finally, on the top of all these two documents, there is something that helps, who decides? Because if you think about bridges, tunnels, dams, buildings, someone takes a decision and normally, he's not neither the scientist, neither the practicing engineer, he's the owner, the concessionary. So we need also to articulate something specifically for them. I've been working closely with Sebastian Dimitris on this, and also to, between us, articulate how these documents should be seen as a whole, as a, not as a, a documents that are not, they are isolated, but in fact, they are linked properly. And if you look what I present here, if you start with something that you are at all an expert, you can start with the guide operators. Then if you want further information for details, you go down and go down until to the level of the fundamentals of probabilistic analysis, yes? So what is the backbone of this guide for operators? So the idea was trying, mainly focusing on the case studies, because if this is for operators, it's a real structure. So the work that is being done in working group four is quite valuable for this document. And the order of inputs to extract information was these fact sheets, conference papers, and journal papers. So try to see how this develops in terms of maturity of the knowledge and information that we could feed into this document. And as I said, mainly from the portfolio of working group four. And what is the structure that is being proposed? So first of all, it's a very short document. If you think or if you put in a position of a owner or concessionary, if you give to them a guide with 10 pages is already too much. So we are trying to push these as much as possible, the shortest possible as possible. So mainly two parts. So there is one part that I put it up to five pages maximum, where we try to give some recommendations towards the cost benefit efficiency in asset management, which we won't mainly aims to effectively communicate the main outcomes on this work on the case studies. And in the second part, some very short two pages that may help them, basically one what they read in part one, which is grounded on the case studies portfolio. If, of course, we cannot promise everything. This is not a document that will solve all the problems. But as Jochen presented, needs some case studies that he put here for five. If let's suppose that owner has a structure very similar to one of these case studies, let's suppose, and you can see clearly that this is quite interesting. And I see some potential of application or replication of these two my structures. There is a second part that can help them to expose what they want, based on these case studies, to the authorities. Because at the end of the day, there are contracts that are signed. And they want, for example, to change some parts of that contract in order to allow them to see these investments as a cost benefit. Because one of the things that we should also think about is that if we ask owners to invest in ACGM, and at the end of the day, they keep continuing doing the same plus ACGM, this is not a good outcome. So part one is being structured mainly on these five parts. We are trying to put each part in one page maximum. So the SCOME, problem statement objective, in a language that is very simple and understandable. So what, from the decision-maker point of view, is being covered? Why, from the decision-maker or our point of view? Here we mix both perspectives, there and ours. And how this can be handled. And here we contribute with the work that we've been doing in these case studies. In the page two, we give some insights on what could be recommended to do, based on the case studies portfolio that we have so far. In page three, we present the portfolio that we have in the case studies. Basically, a very short list with the proper reference for further details. And hopefully, page four, and this is depending on the outcome that we will have from the case studies for journal publications, is if we can put here a cost-benefit evidence for each type of case study. So for a operator when he reads it, the most important that he will like to read is this part, is what I can gain from this, yes? And finally, not to put this document as in a closed form, but put it what is the path forward for the future, yes? So to open this document to them, to their inputs. The part two is like a kind of, I don't like that term, but I don't have another better until now. It's a kind of a request form, where if a owner or a concessionary, after reading this document, based on the inputs that we have from the case studies portfolio, they see quite similarities on their infrastructure park, identify bridges, buildings, tunnels, dams, whatever, they want to present this to the authorities as a request to change something in the contract. So we put here what, for example, what they have as evidence and benefit utilization of ACGM. If they have already some, let's say, case studies applied, even in a single structure and they would like to expand whatever. What is the ACGM-based strategy? What are the type of sensors that are being used? What type of information that are collecting? What is the precision, whatever? Here, something that they, I believe that they want to see clearly, what is the impact towards a better serviceability and safety of the structures? So they inspect, they monitor, what could this lead to an improvement of efficiency in the internal protocols of the company? And here they could put what they are asking for, changing these contracts, based on this monitoring information. And as an attachment in this request form of maximum two pages, they could attach some documents that could come from this cost action. For example, if there is a case study very similar, they could pick one of these case studies just to show evidence and strengthen their request for changing some issues in the contract. Finally, I don't have too much to say because this document, despite that being very short, it's very difficult to write it properly, but it will be presented the fundamental idea and the concept in the YAPS conference in Gimeliage. So I will detail a little bit more step-by-step of these components. But as a final remark, is that I'm quite sure, let's say I'm pretty sure that this document, if properly written, if you succeed it and put it in the correct terms, it might have a huge impact near of this audience that at the end of the day are the people that signed the checks, either for maintenance, either for research, either for implementing systems. So this is an odious that for sure we should not disregard at this stage and take in the momentum and all this work that has been done during these four years. Thank you very much, very much. Thank you very much for the three presentations. So we have some time for comments and questions. Yeah, Michael? Let me start in the wrong order. So, Helga, I noticed a little bit of the text on your last slide. Sorry. And it concerned showing the evidence for the benefit associated with structural health monitoring. And where was it? I read that it was increasing evidence that a payback is given to the owners of services in terms of reduced maintenance cost and or increased structural safety. I think that a selling point for the future is that any passive means of structural safety which can be replaced by far less material and energy consuming active means will help make the building environment much, much more sustainable. And I think that here we can really hit on one of the very, very soft points in the construction industry right now. So I would actively use this as an argument. Wherever we can use structural health monitoring to avoid using material again to avoid building something new, avoid renewals, repairs. This is this is what it can do. Yes, I should mention that this paper that will be presented as the first part exactly focusing on the CO2 emissions and all these building and all these, perhaps these tools and we have been discussing if we push this hub to the decision level. As you say, we pass from a passive to more active approach on asset management and even the decisions from my experience, sometimes the decisions are quite huddock and there is no rational basis to decide it. But I also believe from experience that we have, we all as experts in each field of each one, the duty to push this to these decision makers, these audience, because sometimes they feel a lot of pressure to decide things and they need to know that these tools exist. And it's also a matter of communication. How you communicate with all respect if you put the guideline for scientists to an operator, he will not have a question of the value of that document, but how I use this, how I can understand mainly understanding how this could be beneficial is the language that you use. As I said, despite the fact that at the end this document will be very short, I don't want to be five, six pages, I'm feeling until now it's very hard to write it properly because the language must be very assertive and efficient because it forces you to put in their position in a way that they will like to read this. And this is just to trigger their curiosity because then they will pick this document, pass to some colleague on the company, please look to this more deeply and then go down on these hierarchy of documents, but we need to come from the top, not from the bottom only. This is my point of view. Okay, thank you very much.