3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Eingabe #59

Informationen über die Eingabe

Eingabennummer: 59

Eingaben-ID: 678

UUID der Webformular-Eingabe: 81155220-40a9-4d7f-b1ab-03c21b86f27f

URI der Webformular-Eingabe: /de/projects/waterverse/waterverse_pilots_feedback_long_submit

Erstellt: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 14:47

Abgeschlossen: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 15:23

Geändert: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 15:23

Remote-IP-Adresse: 163.116.181.28

Erstellt von: Gast

Sprache: English

Ist Entwurf: Nein

Aktuelle Seite: Vollständig

Webformular: 3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]

Information and Consent

[WaterVerse Project Pilots] Pilot feedback - Long WaterVerse Logo

Target responders: All WATERVERSE Pilot Participants

Please, read the Participant Information Sheet 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.

Statement of Informed Consent

Name and Date

Full name: Javier Haro

Profile of participant

Pilot site/country Spain

I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: Operator (user of WATERVERSE WDME) at the water organisation

Affiliated Organisation HIDRALIA

Type of affiliated organisation: Water utility

Email [optional]: javier.haro@hidralia-sa.es

Telephone [optional]: {Leer}

Page 1

Functional suitability

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. 3

No deviation between the actual and reasonably expected results. 3

Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour. 3

functional_suitability_average 3

Reliability

The component/tool was operational and available when required for use. 4

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. 3

Low frequency of breaks of the component/tool. 4

Low degree of appearance of failures/faults during the testing/evaluation period. 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. 2

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. 3

The component/tool offers features that make it easy to operate and control. 3

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. 4

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 3

Page 2

Performance efficiency

Satisfactory response time of the functionality. 1

Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. 2

performance_efficiency_average 2

Page 3

Compatibility

Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. 3

Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. 3

compatibility_average 3

Sekundäre Reiter