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

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.: Kyllä
[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.: Ei

Name and Date
-------------
Full name:: Javier Haro
Date of consent:: Ke, 06/26/2024 - 00:00


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]:: {Empty}

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