Again, I think there are two aspects to it. As you mention in your question, there's the cultural aspect, but then there's also the procedural aspect. I think the underappreciation of the problems got through too many people, partly because there was not oversight built into the project. All of the decisions and all of the information went through the executives who were responsible for that project. As soon as they did not appreciate the seriousness and the accumulation of the risks, there was no other mechanism for anybody else within the project's hierarchy to identify that problem.
I think there's the structure—and the deputy has talked about the need for there to be appropriate governance structures in these complex, multi-departmental projects to make sure there other ways of identifying when that happens—but there's also the cultural side of it. I think the cultural side of it, again, in this case was that there were many people outside of the decision process, the formal decision hierarchy, in this project.
There were many people who became aware of the significance of the problems, but they didn't find a way of stepping in and slowing down or changing the project. There needs to be the formal ways of doing it, but then there also needs to be informal ways as well. If people outside of the project see something that is not working well, there needs to be informal ways for those people to speak up as well.