Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Evaluations of the prototypes proved to be instrumental in directing the
development and functionality of the integrated framework. A drawback of
the development of prototypes is the required time and resources which come at the
expense of developing the components and conducting research with it. Based on
the experiences in SEAMLESS-IF however these investments were considered as
essential for building a common understanding of the status and direction of
development of the integrated framework as a whole.
Use of Case Studies
Two sets of case studies formed the thread along which the evaluations were
performed. These cases studies provided contrasting and realistic applications of the
integrated framework. Care was taken to make the applications as representative as
possible of the target range of questions (top-down versus bottom-up, economic versus
environmental policies, region versus EU scale) to avoid to pull the framework
development in a single direction. This allowed to test the general applicability of the
tool across different disciplines and scales and to keep it generic enough to maintain
the flexibility and broader use of the framework. The case studies turned out to provide
a crucial basis for assessing the development of the framework and identifying
differences between disciplines that affect the integrated assessment. Furthermore, the
case studies define operational minimum requirements to the integrated framework
which aid priority setting and allocation of resources in the project.
Timing of Testing
The production of an integrated framework such as SEAMLESS-IF required
development and integration of different components. This simultaneous develop-
ment and integration proved to be more complex than expected and resulted in
considerable delays in prototype delivery to the testing group. These delays in turn
hampered testing and made reliance on the conceptual evaluation developed for this
purpose (Thérond et al.
2009)
an essential contribution to further development of
the framework. The delays in arriving at an operational framework also imply that
no tests of the system as a whole are possible during the project. The technical tests
were done on partially finished components and needed to strike a careful balance
between providing constructive comments to the developers already under pressure
and providing early indications that a tool may prove unsuitable to the whole system's
features and validity domain.
In the case of SEAMLESS-IF, end-users were also involved in the testing to
assure the relevance of the integrated framework. Early involvement of users
provides ideas on required features and potential fields of application useful for
development of the integrated framework. At the same time user-involvement at an
