3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Submission #58

Lähetyksen tiedot

Lähetyksen numero: 58

Lähetyksen ID: 676

Submission UUID: 92ff1aa3-e0cd-478c-bfe4-03818cc79ee9

Submission URI: /fi/projects/waterverse/waterverse_pilots_feedback_long_submit

Luotu: Ke, 26.06.2024 - 15:13

Valmis: Ke, 26.06.2024 - 15:16

Muuttunut: Ke, 26.06.2024 - 15:16

Remote IP address: 163.116.243.50

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: David Aguilera Romero

Profile of participant

Pilot site/country Spain

I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: IT personnel at the water organisation

Affiliated Organisation Cetaqua Andalucía

Type of affiliated organisation: Water utility, Research Centre

Email [optional]: david.aguilera@cetaqua.com

Telephone [optional]: {Empty}

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. 4

Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour. 2

functional_suitability_average 3

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. 4

usability_average 4

Page 2

Performance efficiency

Satisfactory response time of the functionality. 2

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. 2

performance_efficiency_average 3

Page 3

Compatibility

Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. 3

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. 3

The software prevents unauthorised access or modification of data, ensuring data accuracy and consistency. 3

The software provides evidence of actions or events, making it difficult for involved parties to deny their involvement. 3

The software traces actions and activities to specific entities, ensuring clear accountability. 2

The software verifies and ensures the true identity of subjects or resources within the system. 4

security_average 3

Toissijaiset välilehdet