 So, the title of this talk is then why happen instead of who done it. And I'm going to talk about the reasons why you should avoid using the term human error. And you might think that everyone knows this by now, but quite recently I came across a case where this term was used for classifying the reasons behind an incident. So this is a topic that still needs to be talked about. So when we are doing this, we are like in a who done it, right? It's like a Nagata Christie story where we're trying to figure out who committed the crime, in this case who is responsible for the incident. And so this ties to an old view of human error that comes from a field where high reliability is a requirement and this field is aviation. So in the early days, human error was considered the main cause for failures. This is because the system or the machine is considered completely reliable. And all safety issues come from the fact that humans are operating it. So humans are the weak link. But with time and with the progress in research around human factors in aviation, this old view gave way to a new view where human error was no longer considered the cause. It was rather the symptom of failure. And in this view, safety is not inherent in the system and progress is made by understanding how tasks, environment and tools interact. So we have a bit of progress when it comes to this new view. But if we look at the full picture when it comes to our performance in terms of interacting with complex systems and with an environment that has a huge amount of variability, then we know that this variability requires some level of adjustment. And because this is the case, this is one of the reasons why we are successful. It is also one of the reasons why there are failures. But failure here is then considered the flip side of success. And we no longer need to have human error as a category here in this new view of human error, so it's more like a no-view. And so what should we do instead? I mean, we could take away the focus from the individual and try to look at what organizations can do. And at this level, it might be useful to consider some, as a point of reference, some high reliability organizations and some of the principles that they will follow to ensure reliability. And so they are enumerated here. So basically, these organizations are very preoccupied with failure and they will tend to try to, as best, identify all possible warning signs and not to get to the point where there is a failure. So they will maintain a global view of all operations. And when a failure does occur, then because they are committed to resilience, this failure is going to be a learning opportunity. So we are going to see failure here as having a role in improving how these organizations work. And so we arrive at the conclusion of this talk, which is, so we build resilience to failure by focusing on helping people to cope with complexity and the pressure and keeping this sort of mindfulness or awareness at an organizational level. And so we move from this very human tendency to judge to a point where we can then understand why a failure happens. And this is why we need to no longer talk about human error in this context. And if we take out the human perspective, like in this painting by Magritte, I mean, it's a free interpretation of the painting, then we can see that we will have a lot more to gain and the wider perspective. And this is all. Thank you.