3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Inzending #6

Inzendingsnummer: 6
ID inzending: 328
Inzending UUID: dfac7b31-3a44-4101-b976-5dfd4d54ca82

Aangemaakt: vr, 02/16/2024 - 12:46
Voltooid: vr, 02/16/2024 - 13:10
Gewijzigd: ma, 04/15/2024 - 20:47

Extern IP-adres: 192.87.214.3
Ingediend door: Anoniem
Taal: English

Concept: Nee
Huidige pagina: Voltooid
I have read the above statements and I hereby provided my explicit consent. Ja
[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. Nee
Full name: Siddharth Seshan
Date of consent: do, 02/15/2024 - 00:00
Pilot site/country United Kingdom
I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: Technology developer (partner)
Affiliated Organisation KWR Water Research Institution
Type of affiliated organisation: Research Centre
Email [optional]: siddharth.seshan@kwrwater.nl
Telephone [optional]: 0615883975
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. 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
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. 4
Sufficient capability of the involved functionality in restoring itself after an abnormal event or at request. 3
reliability_average 3
I am able to recognise whether the component/tool is appropriate for fulfilling my requirements. 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
Satisfactory response time of the functionality. 3
Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. 3
Proper utilisation of memory resources (did you, for example, encounter “low memory” problems?). 4
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
Sufficiently easy to analyse a failure occurrence. 2
Sufficiently easy to find the cause of a failure. 2
Sufficient ability of recording individual activities during operation of the involved services/functions. 4
Sufficient ability to monitoring the execution status. 4
Sufficient readiness of services to accept parameterisation. 2
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. 2
Sufficient ability to keeping the effect of the modification of the involved tool/functionality local. 2
Sufficient availability of information on the tool/component functionality, in order to perform the testing. 3
Acceptable time needed for testing after a failure resolution. 3
Sufficient ability to take pieces of the tool/component and use it in another context. 2
maintainability_average 3
Good adaptability of the tool/component to several hardware and software operation environments and network facilities. 2
Good adaptability of the tool/component to other infrastructures of water organisations. 2
Low level of effort required for the tool/component to be adapted to a specific operational environment. 2
Sufficient documentation for the installation process. 3
Sufficnent ease and flexibility of installation process. 2
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. 2
portability_average 2
Sufficient ability to operate within a shared integration environment, together with other tools/components. 4
Low degree of customisation required when the tool/component needs to co-exist in a specific integration environment. 4
Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. 3
Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. 4
compatibility_average 4
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. 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. 3
security_average 3

Funding Support Agencies

EU funding support flag
EU structural funds flag
flag of Republic of Cyprus
CY structural funds
CY Research and Innovation Foundation