3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Inzending #25

Inzendingsnummer: 25
ID inzending: 426
Inzending UUID: 779dc25d-da44-434f-a338-850df0e30af4

Aangemaakt: vr, 03/01/2024 - 13:04
Voltooid: vr, 03/01/2024 - 14:29
Gewijzigd: ma, 04/15/2024 - 20:47

Extern IP-adres: 160.40.55.222
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. Ja
Full name: Gerasimos Antzoulatos
Date of consent: di, 09/10/1974 - 00:00
Pilot site/country Netherlands
I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: Technology developer (partner)
Affiliated Organisation CERTH
Type of affiliated organisation: Research Centre
Email [optional]: gantzoulatos@iti.gr
Telephone [optional]: +306938322543
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. 4
No deviation between the actual and reasonably expected results. 4
Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour. 4
functional_suitability_average 4
The component/tool was operational and available when required for use. 4
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. 1
reliability_average 3
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. 3
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. 3
usability_average 3
Satisfactory response time of the functionality. 4
Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. 4
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
Sufficiently easy to analyse a failure occurrence. 3
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. 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. 3
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. 2
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. 4
Good adaptability of the tool/component to other infrastructures of water organisations. 4
Low level of effort required for the tool/component to be adapted to a specific operational environment. 4
Sufficient documentation for the installation process. 4
Sufficnent ease and flexibility of installation process. 4
Sufficient ease of performing subsequent installations. 4
Sufficient ease of maintaining the tool/component when replacements of other parts of the system happen. 3
Sufficient ease of maintaining the continuation of the data flows at replacement requests. 4
portability_average 4
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. 4
compatibility_average 3
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

Funding Support Agencies

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