3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Submission #57

Lähetyksen tiedot

Lähetyksen numero: 57

Lähetyksen ID: 672

Submission UUID: 62bc4602-92a6-4004-9f9e-c655d5ac1fae

Submission URI: /fi/projects/waterverse/waterverse_pilots_feedback_long_submit

Luotu: Ke, 26.06.2024 - 14:42

Valmis: Ke, 26.06.2024 - 14:59

Muuttunut: Ke, 26.06.2024 - 14:59

Remote IP address: 163.116.243.45

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: Gonzalo Jiménez Espinosa

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 S.A.

Type of affiliated organisation: Water utility

Email [optional]: gonzalo.jimenez@hidralia-sa.es

Telephone [optional]: +34 660919001

Page 1

Functional suitability

The functionality of the tool with regards to the user requirements is complete. 3

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. 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. 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

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. 4

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. 3

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 3

Page 2

Performance efficiency

Satisfactory response time of the functionality. 4

Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. 4

performance_efficiency_average 4

Page 3

Compatibility

Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. 3

Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. 3

compatibility_average 3

Toissijaiset välilehdet