This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Tool Evaluation Criteria"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Tool Evaluation Criteria== The following list of general criteria (independent of to which tool category the tool belongs to) should aid HL7/AID/EST in evaluating tools: {|...") |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[category:RIMBAA Issue]] | ||
Revision as of 23:28, 17 September 2014
Tool Evaluation Criteria
The following list of general criteria (independent of to which tool category the tool belongs to) should aid HL7/AID/EST in evaluating tools:
| Criterium | Description |
|---|---|
| Offers support | Up to date documentation, Availability of skilled resources and services |
| Continued development | Follow developments within HL7 (with a reasonable time lag) |
| Proven usage | Used at least 1, or x, sites |
| Reusable | open architecture, developed for re-use as a component in a different "stack", not be tied into one particular solution stack |
| Unambiguous license | No prohibitive licensing small-print, For open products: use should not effectively require the purchase of non-open parts. No hidden "Widget-frosting", should be known ahead of time. |
| No cost barrier | Low cost preferred over high cost |
