3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Submission #50

Lähetyksen tiedot

Lähetyksen numero: 50

Lähetyksen ID: 622

Submission UUID: be74db18-e7fa-43ca-8652-70e28f24f657

Submission URI: /fi/projects/waterverse/waterverse_pilots_feedback_long_submit

Luotu: To, 30.05.2024 - 10:22

Valmis: To, 30.05.2024 - 10:25

Muuttunut: To, 30.05.2024 - 10:25

Remote IP address: 37.182.178.214

Lähettäjä: Anonyymi

Kieli: English

Is draft: Ei

Tämänhetkinen sivu: Valmis

Verkkolomake: 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: Matteo Basile

Profile of participant

Pilot site/country Finland

I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: Technology developer (partner)

Affiliated Organisation ENG

Type of affiliated organisation: Innovation Hub and Network/Cluster, Research Centre

Email [optional]: {Empty}

Telephone [optional]: {Empty}

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. 3

No deviation between the actual and reasonably expected results. 3

Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour. 4

functional_suitability_average 4

Reliability

The component/tool was operational and available when required for use. 3

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. 4

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. 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. 2

usability_average 3

Page 2

Performance efficiency

Satisfactory response time of the functionality. 4

Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. 3

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 3

Maintainability

Sufficiently easy to analyse a failure occurrence. 4

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. 3

Sufficient readiness of services to accept parameterisation. 3

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. 3

Sufficient ability to keeping the effect of the modification of the involved tool/functionality local. 4

Sufficient availability of information on the tool/component functionality, in order to perform the testing. 4

Acceptable time needed for testing after a failure resolution. 4

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. 3

Low level of effort required for the tool/component to be adapted to a specific operational environment. 3

Sufficient documentation for the installation process. 2

Sufficnent ease and flexibility of installation process. 3

Sufficient ease of performing subsequent installations. 3

Sufficient ease of maintaining the tool/component when replacements of other parts of the system happen. 2

Sufficient ease of maintaining the continuation of the data flows at replacement requests. 3

portability_average 3

Page 3

Compatibility

Sufficient ability to operate within a shared integration environment, together with other tools/components. 3

Low degree of customisation required when the tool/component needs to co-exist in a specific integration environment. 3

Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. 3

Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. 2

compatibility_average 3

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

Toissijaiset välilehdet