3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Eingabe #17

Eingabennummer: 17
Eingaben-ID: 399
UUID der Webformular-Eingabe: eb911934-e936-404b-a122-1f24990c8862

Erstellt: Fr., 01.03.2024 - 12:50
Abgeschlossen: Fr., 01.03.2024 - 12:54
Geändert: Mo., 15.04.2024 - 20:47

Remote-IP-Adresse: 194.151.121.133
Erstellt von: Gast
Sprache: English

Ist Entwurf: Nein
Aktuelle Seite: Vollständig
I have read the above statements and I hereby provided my explicit consent. Ja
[Optional] I agree that my personal data can be used for contacting me in the context of inviting me in future events of interest, related to the WATERVERSE. Nein
Full name: Eric de Vos
Date of consent: Fr., 03/01/2024 - 00:00
Pilot site/country Netherlands
I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: Operator (user of WATERVERSE WDME) at the water organisation
Affiliated Organisation PWN
Type of affiliated organisation: Water utility
Email [optional]: eric.de.vos@pwn.nl
Telephone [optional]:
The functionality of the tool with regards to the user requirements is complete. 2
The implementation of data and information transfers through the interface functions is correct. 3
Low frequency of failures to exchange data between the component and other involved components/tools. 2
No deviation between the actual and reasonably expected results. 3
Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour. 2
functional_suitability_average 2
The component/tool was operational and available when required for use. 3
The component/tool satisfied user needs for using it under normal operation. 3
I felt that the component/tool’s functionality was giving expected results and at expected time. 2
Low frequency of breaks of the component/tool. 2
Low degree of appearance of failures/faults during the testing/evaluation period. 2
When a failure occurred, no much time was required before gradual start-up of the component/tool. 2
Sufficient capability of the involved functionality in restoring itself after an abnormal event or at request. 3
reliability_average 2
I am able to recognise whether the component/tool is appropriate for fulfilling my requirements. 3
Within a reasonable time of training, I felt confident in using the tool with effectiveness, efficiency, freedom from risk and satisfaction in the specified context of use. 2
The component/tool offers features that make it easy to operate and control. 2
I am able to control the tool and its operation is within my expectations. 3
The component/tool has sufficient attractiveness of the user interface. 2
A sufficiently high proportion of the user interface elements could be customised to my satisfaction. 2
The component/tool offered sufficient support in avoiding errors when using its functionality. 3
usability_average 2
Satisfactory response time of the functionality. 2
Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. 2
performance_efficiency_average 2
maintainability_average 0
portability_average 0
Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. 2
Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. 2
compatibility_average 2
security_average 0

Funding Support Agencies

EU funding support flag
EU structural funds flag
flag of Republic of Cyprus
CY structural funds
CY Research and Innovation Foundation