3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Eingabe #34

Information and Consent
-----------------------
*[WaterVerse Project Pilots] Pilot feedback - Long*
 

*Target responders: *All WATERVERSE Pilot Participants

Please, read the Participant Information Sheet [1] and provide your explicit 
consent below before moving to the pilot participation and feedback 
provision.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pre-assessment questionnaire requires approximately 10 minutes to be 
completed.

 


[1] https://public.phoebeinnovations.com/projects/waterverse/information_sheet
Statement of Informed Consent
-----------------------------
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.: Ja

Name and Date
-------------
Full name:: Gerasimos Antzoulatos
Date of consent:: Di., 09/10/1974 - 00:00


Profile of participant
----------------------
Pilot site/country: Cyprus
I participate in this pilot exercise with the role:: Technology developer (partner)
Affiliated Organisation: Centre For Research & Technology Hellas - Information Technologies Institute
Type of affiliated organisation:: Research Centre
Email [optional]:: gantzoulatos@iti.gr
Telephone [optional]:: {Leer}

Page 1
------
Functional suitability
----------------------
The functionality of the tool with regards to the user requirements is complete.: 4
The implementation of data and information transfers through the interface functions is correct.: 4
Low frequency of failures to exchange data between the component and other involved components/tools.: 4
No deviation between the actual and reasonably expected results.: 4
Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour.: 4
functional_suitability_average: 4

Reliability
-----------
The component/tool was operational and available when required for use.: 4
When a failure occurred, no much time was required before gradual start-up of the component/tool.: 3
Sufficient capability of the involved functionality in restoring itself after an abnormal event or at request.: 3
reliability_average: 3

Usability
---------
I am able to recognise whether the component/tool is appropriate for fulfilling my requirements.: 4
The component/tool has sufficient attractiveness of the user interface.: 3
A sufficiently high proportion of the user interface elements could be customised to my satisfaction.: 3
The component/tool offered sufficient support in avoiding errors when using its functionality.: 4
usability_average: 4


Page 2
------
Performance efficiency
----------------------
Satisfactory response time of the functionality.: 4
Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements.: 4
Proper utilisation of memory resources (did you, for example, encounter “low memory” problems?).: 3
Ability for the system to remain operational when pushed to its limits in terms of number of users, frequency of requests, etc.: 3
performance_efficiency_average: 4

Maintainability
---------------
Sufficiently easy to analyse a failure occurrence.: 3
Sufficiently easy to find the cause of a failure.: 3
Sufficient ability of recording individual activities during operation of the involved services/functions.: 3
Sufficient ability to monitoring the execution status.: 4
Sufficient readiness of services to accept parameterisation.: 4
Sufficient availability of the appropriate mechanisms to be ready for changes at any time.: 3
Sufficient ability to decompose the service/functionality into smaller pieces, without affecting the operation of the others.: 4
Sufficient ability to keeping the effect of the modification of the involved tool/functionality local.: 3
Sufficient availability of information on the tool/component functionality, in order to perform the testing.: 3
Acceptable time needed for testing after a failure resolution.: 3
Sufficient ability to take pieces of the tool/component and use it in another context.: 3
maintainability_average: 3

Portability (please, rate based on best guess given the information available)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good adaptability of the tool/component to several hardware and software operation environments and network facilities.: 4
Good adaptability of the tool/component to other infrastructures of water organisations.: 4
Low level of effort required for the tool/component to be adapted to a specific operational environment.: 4
Sufficient documentation for the installation process.: 4
Sufficnent ease and flexibility of installation process.: 4
Sufficient ease of performing subsequent installations.: 4
Sufficient ease of maintaining the tool/component when replacements of other parts of the system happen.: 3
Sufficient ease of maintaining the continuation of the data flows at replacement requests.: 4
portability_average: 4


Page 3
------
Compatibility
-------------
Sufficient ability to operate within a shared integration environment, together with other tools/components.: 4
Low degree of customisation required when the tool/component needs to co-exist in a specific integration environment.: 4
Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces.: 4
Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces.: 4
compatibility_average: 4

Security
--------
The software ensures that only authorised individuals have access to sensitive data.: 4
The software prevents unauthorised access or modification of data, ensuring data accuracy and consistency.: 4
The software provides evidence of actions or events, making it difficult for involved parties to deny their involvement.: 4
The software traces actions and activities to specific entities, ensuring clear accountability.: 4
The software verifies and ensures the true identity of subjects or resources within the system.: 4
security_average: 4