Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Koha


2017 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction243 4 1 5 8 19 56 74 76 97.638
ILS Functionality241 4 2 7 6 30 58 77 57 87.418
Print Functionality240 3 1 2 4 6 12 40 96 76 87.748
Electronic Functionality231 8 4 10 10 11 26 40 41 51 30 86.207
Company Satisfaction233 2 3 3 5 12 15 37 66 90 97.668
Support Satisfaction234 2 3 1 4 5 13 14 40 52 100 97.628
Support Improvement219 1 1 7 18 56 18 23 41 54 56.667
Company Loyalty229 11 1 6 1 6 19 10 34 39 102 97.268
Open Source Interest221 17 1 2 13 3 7 9 17 152 97.629

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS246 218.54%
Considering new Interface246 3413.82%
System Installed on time?246 21788.21%

Average Collection size: 113959

TypeCount
Public2
Academic3
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction269 2 2 1 4 17 19 56 92 76 87.578
ILS Functionality269 1 4 3 3 17 23 68 101 49 87.358
Print Functionality268 4 3 2 3 10 18 47 104 77 87.608
Electronic Functionality260 13 11 13 18 34 31 55 60 25 86.077
Company Satisfaction262 2 2 3 3 7 16 27 34 80 88 97.478
Support Satisfaction256 2 3 3 5 7 20 22 35 75 84 97.368
Support Improvement245 2 2 3 3 13 65 26 35 42 54 56.607
Company Loyalty249 10 7 5 5 7 19 14 32 53 97 97.078
Open Source Interest238 18 2 4 2 7 13 3 7 23 159 97.539

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS275 165.82%
Considering new Interface275 3512.73%
System Installed on time?275 23384.73%

Average Collection size: 134577

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2015 results according to the type and size of the library.

KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2707.43 517.4997.3311067.5497.331136.15107.40
ILSFunctionality2717.31 517.4797.1111067.3797.111136.38106.90
PrintFunctionality2687.60 507.4097.3311057.6897.441136.6998.33
ElectronicFunctionality2566.19 505.7686.001996.4896.561126.17104.70
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2587.37 507.4876.5711017.5697.221136.85107.80
CompanyLoyalty2516.92 446.7786.6311037.2587.001135.00107.70



2015 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction270 5 2 2 4 3 12 20 59 85 78 87.438
ILS Functionality271 3 1 2 6 7 8 27 61 104 52 87.318
Print Functionality268 3 5 5 4 3 7 8 40 102 91 87.608
Electronic Functionality256 17 5 4 9 14 26 36 54 55 36 86.197
Company Satisfaction260 5 3 2 6 7 13 22 35 71 96 97.418
Support Satisfaction258 5 2 5 7 5 16 21 31 69 97 97.378
Support Improvement249 7 1 2 5 13 63 21 17 40 80 96.717
Company Loyalty251 19 2 6 7 8 18 19 15 53 104 96.928
Open Source Interest228 19 5 3 3 8 6 3 6 17 158 97.469

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS277 103.61%
Considering new Interface277 3311.91%
System Installed on time?277 24789.17%

Average Collection size: 145133

TypeCount
Public1
Academic0
School1
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction230 1 3 2 2 14 23 64 73 48 87.368
ILS Functionality230 1 5 2 4 12 33 68 62 43 77.177
Print Functionality222 1 3 2 2 10 17 39 89 59 87.608
Electronic Functionality222 8 6 6 5 18 30 27 53 47 22 76.147
Company Satisfaction225 1 6 2 5 13 17 41 61 79 97.528
Support Satisfaction221 1 3 4 4 7 13 22 32 57 78 97.388
Support Improvement213 2 3 3 5 16 52 18 29 33 52 56.537
Company Loyalty209 8 4 2 4 10 18 16 23 45 79 97.078
Open Source Interest196 10 2 3 4 4 7 2 6 21 137 97.799

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS237 166.75%
Considering new Interface237 3313.92%
System Installed on time?237 20285.23%

Average Collection size: 173934

TypeCount
Public0
Academic1
School0
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction194 2 1 2 4 3 6 17 42 58 59 97.478
ILS Functionality194 2 1 4 2 4 9 17 53 61 41 87.258
Print Functionality193 1 1 7 5 7 10 25 74 63 87.638
Electronic Functionality183 9 8 5 4 8 19 31 37 35 27 76.157
Company Satisfaction186 3 4 4 2 2 9 11 26 46 79 97.528
Support Satisfaction185 2 5 7 1 1 9 15 28 39 78 97.418
Support Improvement178 5 4 2 3 4 37 21 20 32 50 96.697
Company Loyalty186 12 5 4 1 5 12 8 21 29 89 97.128
Open Source Interest168 8 4 1 3 2 7 6 4 3 130 97.839

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS199 115.53%
Considering new Interface199 2814.07%
System Installed on time?199 16884.42%

Average Collection size: 547867

TypeCount
Public1
Academic5
School2
Consortium0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0008
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 3 2 3 4 3 11 35 50 41 87.388
ILS Functionality152 1 4 6 4 6 12 39 46 34 87.188
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction149 3 1 1 7 7 4 7 24 36 59 97.398
Support Satisfaction147 5 4 2 6 2 3 8 27 39 51 97.198
Support Improvement140 3 2 4 4 7 26 14 19 25 36 96.587
Company Loyalty143 11 3 2 3 4 8 7 17 24 64 97.008
Open Source Interest139 8 1 1 4 4 2 6 8 105 97.939

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS157 63.82%
Considering new Interface157 117.01%
System Installed on time?157 12982.17%

Average Collection size: 173045

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction166 5 2 4 2 5 9 13 34 53 39 87.068
ILS Functionality163 3 2 4 4 4 7 17 53 42 27 76.907
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction159 7 3 8 5 3 12 6 19 42 54 96.908
Support Satisfaction159 6 6 8 7 1 7 14 20 36 54 96.798
Support Improvement153 4 1 5 5 7 35 18 14 25 39 96.447
Company Loyalty158 17 4 4 3 3 12 11 11 23 70 96.658
Open Source Interest136 9 1 1 3 3 5 2 8 9 95 97.689

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 137.65%
Considering new Interface170 2313.53%
System Installed on time?170 13981.76%

Average Collection size: 125739

TypeCount
Public2
Academic2
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0004
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction127 1 3 2 4 11 36 28 42 97.548
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction120 2 2 3 4 15 6 14 27 47 97.318
Support Satisfaction122 3 1 1 5 4 9 13 13 29 44 97.188
Support Improvement123 4 1 1 2 5 19 9 14 18 50 97.078
Company Loyalty123 10 1 4 3 9 5 12 17 62 97.159
Open Source Interest118 1 1 1 1 1 3 110 98.749

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS131 75.34%
Considering new Interface131 139.92%
System Installed on time?131 10983.21%

Average Collection size: 112613

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction86 6 2 4 5 15 22 21 11 76.637
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction82 2 2 4 5 3 8 10 18 15 15 76.327
Support Satisfaction83 4 1 4 7 3 7 9 14 20 14 86.207
Support Improvement75 6 3 1 7 5 17 4 11 6 15 55.535
Company Loyalty80 13 2 2 1 12 4 9 15 22 95.967
Open Source Interest76 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 66 98.379

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS87 910.34%
Considering new Interface87 78.05%
System Installed on time?87 6675.86%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction33 3 2 2 7 6 8 5 86.337
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction33 2 1 3 2 1 2 8 7 7 76.397
Support Satisfaction33 2 1 1 1 2 4 6 5 5 6 66.036
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty33 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 5 11 96.007
Open Source Interest28 1 2 1 1 23 98.299

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS33 515.15%
Considering new Interface33 00.00%
System Installed on time?33 2369.70%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction19 1 1 3 5 6 3 87.217
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 1 2 1 7 2 8 97.487
Support Satisfaction22 2 1 2 3 5 2 7 96.827
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty21 1 1 4 1 1 5 8 96.718
Open Source Interest24 1 1 1 21 98.679

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS27 518.52%
Considering new Interface27 414.81%
System Installed on time?27 13.70%




2017 : gen: 7.63 company 7.66 loyalty 7.26 support 7.62

2016 : gen: 7.57 company 7.47 loyalty 7.07 support 7.36

2015 : gen: 7.43 company 7.41 loyalty 6.92 support 7.37

2014 : gen: 7.36 company 7.52 loyalty 7.07 support 7.38

2013 : gen: 7.47 company 7.52 loyalty 7.12 support 7.41

2012 : gen: 7.38 company 7.39 loyalty 7.00 support 7.19

2011 : gen: 7.06 company 6.90 loyalty 6.65 support 6.79

2010 : gen: 7.54 company 7.31 loyalty 7.15 support 7.18

2009 : gen: 6.63 company 6.32 loyalty 5.96 support 6.20

2008 : gen: 6.33 company 6.39 loyalty 6.00 support 6.03

2007 : gen: 7.21 company 7.48 loyalty 6.71 support 6.82

Comments

Cannot, have not, answered questions concerning outside support "company".) We are satisfied that open-source solutions (Koha) and our own in-house expertise meet our needs. (Type: Special)

Koha community is very helpful for the success of Koha. (Type: )

we have migrated to Koha using Bywater Solutions as our hosting company and are entirely satisfied with their support and the ILS implemented, we have no plans to change this in the future. (Type: Academic)

We are evaluating Vufind to integrate Koha with other software (Access To Memory: Atom), we are not thinking about replace the system or OPAC at all. (Type: Special)

Nuestro produto se introdujo por el personal de la Escuela, . (Type: School)

Koha is a work in progress and I love it's customization. It also helps that our consortium is AWESOME and we are perpetually coming up with ways to make the system better. (Type: Public)

We continue to enjoy the flexibility of open-source and are fortunate to have a staff person who can manage the coding to customize to fit our needs. (Type: Public)

Koha has been very effective for us. There have been minor issues with a certain functionality that we'd like to see implemented, but nothing that affects us on a regular basis. Most of those issues were an attempt to solve a human (staff) problem with the ILS. ByWater Solutions has been fantastic. It does seem (though I haven't recorded this so it's just my overall impression) that customer service response times have increased a bit in the past year. Still, we're getting good service. (Type: Consortium)

[...] (Type: Public)

We're one of the Koha "go-it-alone" vendors, so we're not getting support from any vendor. Our ILS isn't a major part of our library's function--our circulation is maybe in the high two figures each month, and most of the literature searching/literature providing is from journals. Koha does everything we need, requires little attention, and is saving us thousands of dollars per year. (Type: Medical)

Koha does the job. Occasionally I need reports that I ask Koha staff to provide for us. They have been very good in responding to requests for unique reports as well as troubleshooting problems. (Type: Public)

Koha is a very stable and easy to manage ILS. ByWater Solutions support is very responsive and knowledgeable. They have a friendly and helpful approach. The Koha-Community is a very active group. (Type: Public)

Good luck with your results. A good and useful tool! (Type: Public)

We believe in the ProQuest vision for Intota and are hoping that the merger with Ex Libris will result in faster development and cost-effective best-of-breed choices for us. Koha has been an effective interim solution and works just as well (if not better) than our Voyager instance, but we don't see it as a long-term solution given that most of our collection emphasis is on e-resources. (Type: Academic)

We're very happy with our current library management system (KOHA) and are not considering changing. We're also very happy with the support we receive from the KOHA community and our support providers at CALYX. (Type: Other)

happy (Type: School)

We are very happy with the service and tech. support Bywater Solutions provides us. (Type: Public)

Improved Search functions would be nice. Electronic resource management would be easier if we could batch delete, but we understand that ByWater prohibits this function as a safety measure. System administration is good, reliability for upgrades is much improved from our initial experience. But customer support can be frustrating, reported problems are not always promptly fixed, responses don't fully answer the questions. (Type: Medical)

Already have an open source ILS - Koha (Type: Academic)

We implemented Koha in-house and we are maintaining it by ourselves. That's why I am not able to respond about our satisfaction with the vendor. We are also contributing our Koha developments to the Koha community (Type: Academic)

Very happy with Koha and the community of users of this ILS. Best decision we have ever made in recent time! Really looking forward to the upcoming new version (3.22) with its new features! (Type: Special)

In addition to Koha we use open source software called CUFTS for e-resource management. This is also hosted and supported by PTFS Europe. (Type: Government Agency)

- We haven't explored the entire functionality of the system like using it to manage e-resources, we do not receive support from any company, we rely on colleagues who have the same (Type: Academic)

The library has been using ILS KOHA since October 2011. Koha was installed and configured by the library professionals and functioning perfectly. Circulation, acquisition, cataloguing of physical resources as well as electronic are being done by the ILS. (Type: Academic)

Just have the nagging feeling that current vendor is losing interest in the ILS. Their documentation is pretty opaque. Asking for some usually elicits the response that we should 'check the release notes' ... but if the "feature" we are asking about came about in some earlier software release, there's no real way to know just where to look for help and explanations. As a result, we do a lot of blind flipping of switches to see what happens if we do this, or that, or these other two things in various combinations. At least that's how it seems. (Type: Museum)

After almost 5 years, we still do not have the functionality we were told we would have on go live date. Basic searching is still not available. Sub titles do not show on pick lists, Check boxes only work page by page, not by search results..... (Type: Public)

We don't have maintenance contract with any outside company. (Type: Government Agency)

We are on 'LibLime Academic Koha' [LAK] They are planning to merge the LAK and Liblime Koha (public library version) next year - hopefully that won't be like a migration. (Type: Academic)

We remain very pleased that we moved to Koha. We are no longer at the mercy of an ILS that is gobbled up by another company with fears of an uncertain future. The cost is a fraction of the previous and this is more of an investment. This ILS will outlive us and only continue to improve. By librarians for libraries.. (Type: Public)

At [...] , our library team has implemented Koha, Dspace, VuFind and Drupal. We are managing these systems by ourselves. We are not depending on any vendors. Our library team is maintaining and upgrading the all systems time to time. (Type: Academic)

Koha is great. Bywater is fair. Bywater is quick to answer the phone and great for system down but migration of other libraries into the consortium is awful and questions to resolve non urgent issue is not quick. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

[...] is a member of the [...] . ILS support and development, and contact directly with PTFS LibLime, is handled by System staff. (Type: Public)

Calyx are a small library tech specialist company based in Australia. We are their first hosted client in New Zealand. Calyx are 100% committed to open source tech, the entire project was managed using open source software. Their project management and planning, which they gave us access to, was conducted in Open Office, and we used open source web conferencing software for training and discussion. We are delighted with their service overall which included customization of both the OPAC and our staff client. Koha was first developed in NZ, and some of the people first involved with the development now work for Catalyst, the main Koha provider in NZ, however the cost of going with them was just too prohibitive overall. (Type: Academic)

Print resource question not applicable Only been with the Compnay 10 months so question regarding improvement in customer service not applicable. [...] (Type: Consortium)

Currently using an open source ILS depending upon the definition of that - LibLime Koha. It might more accurately be termed Open Development. (Type: Public)

We switched because our former representative was unavailable for questions and explanations more often than available. The former system would have been fine had there been better communication with our representative. (Type: Public)

Things were much better before the last major upgrade. Now, the default seems to fall to whatever mode we do not want ... (Type: Academic)

We are very pleased with our relationship with ByWater. Their communication and training with/for us are really top-notch; it's nice to not feel any hesitation about bringing up questions/issues with them. Koha is serving the needs of our physical and electronic collections quite nicely! (Type: Medical)

[...] anticipates moving to the LibLime academic codebase in 2016 which should improve the access to electronic resources and which will provide us with a discovery layer. We do an annual survey of our libraries regarding Koha and 75% are satisfied with the system, hence the 7 rating for the first two questions. (Type: Consortium)

We would be considering a separate discover interface in addition to an ILS if we could afford one. (Type: Academic)

We are already using an open source ILS which is Koha. (Type: Special)

Would love to an ILL module, and more training on the technology options available in Koha. (Type: Academic)

Mill run no longer supporting our system as they have joined ByWater Solutions (Type: Public)

Our Koha Consortium is great - I love it! (Type: Public)

We migrated from Winnebago this past year because the local school no longer supports it. (Type: Public)

El Koha es un SGB open source, el soporte lo brinda la comunidad que se conforma, generalmente por los mismos bibliotecarios que lo utilizan, informáticos, etc. (Type: Academic)

The Library moved its catalogue records onto Koha from September 2015 and the web interface was launched at the end of October 2015 to coincide with the opening of our new library. Not all the funcionality has been applied yet and we do not use it manage our electronic resources yet, but we will be evaluating the options for integrating EBSCO. Feedback from library users has been very positive. (Type: Special)

La biblioteca no tiene presupuesto para suscribirse a bases de datos de publicaciones periódicas ni a plataformas de ebooks, por tal razón el Koha cumple los requisitos necesarios para procesar el material impreso y lo que se encuentre en open access en la web, de interés para nuestros usuarios. De todos modos, estaría interesada en herramientas de descubrimiento de acceso abierto como VuFind para poder buscar desde un solo "box" también en grandes bases de datos de acceso abierto como doaj, scielo, etc. Las nuevas plataformas de servicios como Koali OLE, open source, puede ser una opción a futuro. La empresa que instaló el Koha en ALADI se llama SAbIT S.R.L. y se la contrató para dejar funcionando el sistema adaptado a nuestra realidad, pero no queda contratada en forma permanente para posteriores ajustes. El Departamento de Informática será quien lo mantenga próximamente (aunque no tienen mucha experiencia). También se han hecho consultas a las lista de la Comunidad Koha. En Uruguay somos los únicos, junto a la [...] (quien le hizo tantas adaptaciones, que ya no parece un koha ni se pueden adaptar a las nuevas actualizaciones. Por tal motivo, he comenzado a contactarme con bibliotecas de Argentina. (Type: )

Koha works well for a small subject-specific research library with extensive special collections holdings. (Type: Museum)

Koha has a support staff that communicates often and personally. I'm impressed with that aspect. The catalog isn't the sleekest looking, but that is expected for an open source product. Reports I find to be challenging compared to big companies like Follett who have rather user-friendly options. You need to build basic code in Koha to make the reports initially. There are also few options for global deletions of records with no items and old patron accounts. These issues would really help out cleaning up our records. Though these issues are prominent currently, overall, Koha does what we need it to do and the customer support is very strong. The pros are greater than the cons. (Type: Public)

Bywater's KOHA ILS is unsatisfactory and does not meet student, faculty or librarian needs. Check out, check in and searching of all kinds are very slow in both the staff client and OPAC. Keyword search results are not accurate. The most relevant records do not appear at the top of the search results. Brief summary bib records are incomplete, omitting subtitles and series volume numbers. Search results limiter choices are confusing. Last year the Bywater staff turned off ILS access at one of the 5 schools in our consortium without notifying any consortium librarians. They turned it off because they failed to correctly interpret system activity. Bywater staff will not fix bugs or make changes paid for by open source community members until a new version is released, which causes delays of several months. (Type: School)

Actualmente el catálogo es de consulta interna (Type: Medical)

Catálogo disponible de manera local. (Type: )

The Koha product has a very active and supportive community, a committed team of developers and a well managed update schedule. (Type: Consortium)

[...] (Type: Public)

The Koha system was purchased by the school without really considering the needs of a library that is 99 percent electronic. It is almost never used by anyone but the library director. (Type: Academic)

[...] is a small academic consortium with some libraries only having a few staff to handle all aspects of the ILS. Prior to migration we assessed that not all ILS functionality was being used by members due to small staff sizes. However, that being said, it has been an adjustment to lose certain functionality our libraries had come to expect, namely indexing and authority control. We'd like to see Koha thrive into the future and be a true alternative for all kinds of libraries but especially academic libraries. For that to happen libraries themselves need to try and step up and contribute to improving that ILS. We hope to see better indexing over time as that's the number one shortcoming. The serial and acquisitions modules are also lacking. We would like to help shape Koha over time. With some strides over the next two-three years it could be a true option for small academics. Most are contemplating ILS moves right now so developments in 2016 are crucial as then the wave of ILS changeover may subside. ... (Type: Consortium)

tenemos KOHA. estamos intentando que nos lo actualicen y que una empresa se haga cargo del mantenimiento. Actualmente no tenemos mantenimiento (eran los propios informaticos del ayuntamiento quien se encargaban) (Type: )

ByWater Solutions has surpassed my expectations as an implementation and support provider. I couldn't be happier. (Type: Theology)

While my organization is satisfied overall with our open-source ILS, the vendor we have selected for hosting and support has not provided the level of customer service we would like to receive. Therefore, we are looking at keeping our existing ILS but soliciting a new host and support vendor in 2016. (Type: Special)

I personally am not happy with the Koha system. The patron side is great and user friendly, but the administrative side that I use, is very combersome and does not offer reports that work properly for what I need the accounting side is awful and causes extra work for me and others. If we ask to get it fixed, it costs to do that and it is not important to the company that provides the service. I feel they are trying to make the patrons happy, but the the ones who need it and wont listen to us when we tell them what we need. (Type: Public)

I believe KOHA has the ability to fulfill our needs, but our IT person is the one that has installed it and makes any changes with it and he doesn't know what to do to get it to work correctly. I can add items or delete items and it will be several months before they disappear or are searchable. Our IT person has to do a complete re-index to get the items to show up. He has tried things that have been on the KOHA list, but so far nothing has worked. Due to finances we have not contacted someone else for support. (Type: Academic)

We've been using the open source Koha ILS for almost a year. We're very pleased with it so far. Flexibility is very important to us and using an open source product has allowed us to make many customizations, especially to the user interface. We have library staff who have been able to do some of this for us. And we have also received quite a bit of support from ByWater Solutions. Working with them to make our changes to the system and with other support issues has been great. (Type: Law)

ByWater was terrific when the library was migrating and training to use Koha. They continue to be responsive to all of our concerns. (Type: Public)

I inherited an open source system and do not care for the lack of functionality, slow servers and that every upgrade needs to be paid for before it can even be started. I would personally never choose an open source program but I am stuck with it as part of a consortium. I would love there to be a better option for software but I have to put up with the current system and have no other choices. (Type: Public)

We are overall satisfied with the ILS but it runs very very slowly at times. (Type: Public)

Koha is wonderful open source product. We are still relatively new to the system and there is still more to explore to get the most from it. I enjoy seeing our patrons using the system and having a vested interest in their library. More power to the patron! (Type: Public)

As part of the [...] , we are migrating to Bywater Solutions' Koha ILS, however the migration is not yet complete and we have not yet "gone live." So far, our experience with Bywater has been excellent. Their staff is enthusiastic, knowledgeable and supportive. We believe the Koha ILS will be a significant improvement, especially for our patrons. (Type: Public)

We are a member of the [...] . We use the Open Source Koha with hosting and support via Bywater. Tech support if first within our consortium then to Bywater if not solved. (Type: Public)

We worked with a KOHA support vendor initially but found them ultimately unnecessary. Searching for answers & procedures within the user community was more productive and, of course, free of charge. This community is amazing in terms of both knowledge and generosity. Since updates are created/administrated by a committee of users, fixes are responsive to user needs and implemented quickly. This has been a tremendous change from vendors who promise annually with contract signing and fail to deliver. (Type: Public)

This survey doesn't have responses that cover open source or self-sufficient small libraries very well. (Type: Public)

I really think open source is an excellent way for libraries to go. Since there are great companies, like ByWater Solutions, around to help it is easy for large and very small libraries to use open source products like Koha. (Type: Public)

Koha is generally an excellent library system and meets our needs. Because it is open source we have been able to extract data into QIk View data management system, thus overcoming one its weaknesses - reporting. We were also able to set up EDI purchasing to meet our specific requirements. We had some problems with automating data import and configuration between our systems and suppliers - now resolved but we have spent approx. £3000 post installation on development costs. We would have liked e-resource management but systems with this function were prohibitively expensive. (Type: Academic)

We are still in the migration phase from OASIS to Koha, therefore, are still working out some issues in our data but the Equinox support team are addressing all issues quickly. (Type: Public)

We utilized ByWater for the migration of our ILS, but have been self-supporting for several years. We were very satisfied with ByWater's performance. We self-host our ILS. (Type: Academic)

We just migrated to Koha hosted by Bywater Solutions after over 20 years with Millennium from III. We have been truly impressed by the service the Bywater team provides and with the capabilities of Koha, particular the opportunities it provides for integration with other systems and platforms. (Type: School)

We are a member of on open source Koha consortium with hosting and support from ByWater Solutions. We are happy with our ILS for the most part, but frequent upgrades sometimes seem to disrupt functions that have been working well. Invoicing from ByWater has been irregular and they have been unresponsive to our questions about costs from them that have not been billed for months (to our advantage). (Type: Consortium)

While we'd love to implement an open source ILS, our parent company manages server space and working with IT can be difficult and require getting into a project queue. For that reason, we seek out SAAS solutions that are hosted by a third-party who provide support. It reduces the resources we need within the Library to manage these systems. (Type: Academic)

The vendors for Aspen Cat are terrific and I have never experienced such timely availability. Someone is always available and ready to help with any problem. (Type: Public)

it is wonderful experience working with ByWater Solutions - getting the benefits of proprietary ILS product with this support. (Type: Academic)

Module acquisition insatisfaisant. Problème de taille de la base et de plantages inexpliqués. Problème de lien entre les ressources électroniques et l'ILS. (Type: Academic)

Bywater support does a good job. Koha lacks some of the functionality we had when we used a commercial ILS, but it's much less expensive. Overall, we are well satisfied. (Type: Academic)

After 18 years with Verso (we were were one of the original public libraries to use it) we switched to Koha/Bywater this year. The transition was much easier than we expected, thanks to the support of both Bywater and Autographics. Open source? We have successfully used open source software on our public access computers for many years, so Koha was not something we feared. The public adapted immediately. Bywater helped us customize the catalog interface so that it fits seamlessly within our web pages. The staff had a slightly more difficult transition as most of us had never used any ILS system other than Verso. A couple of features we liked are missing (particularly the slick ways Verso handles (Type: Public)

The product is very much a work in progress. We have contributed to development and it takes a very long time. Customer service from ByWater has improved over the past year, but only because we have been very vocal about our needs, almost to the point of being obnoxious. (Type: Public)

Our ILS vendor is... myself (Type: Academic)

Impressed with the functionalities of the system. Right from implementation it has upgraded all our client services and streamlined our operations. The cost of any customizations however will always be an issue for us. (Type: Church)

ByWater's customer support responsiveness was slower this year, but I believe it may have been due to understaffing/vacant positions. In the later part of the year there were marked improvements in response time for tickets. We have had a long and successful relationship with ByWater, and are pleased overall with their services. We already have an open source ILS, and are happy with it. Therefore I answered question #15 from the position that we would consider open-source ILS again, should be decide to move to another ILS. The "number of items" listed above is the number of "volumes" or physical books that we have, per 2014-2015 NCES data. (Type: Academic)

The Library installed Koha originally [...] . This is the most awesome easy install. It installed in about 15 minutes following the instructions. Books were imported in about 45 minutes after editing with Marc Edit. this took days but only as a result of having to figure out the format and fields to properly import. The virtual drive makes instant backup easy and re-installation a flash. (Type: Public)

We are extremely happy with ByWater Solutions. While Koha may have room for growth, every ILS does, it works for us very well and we appreciate being able to suggest and support future development projects to improve it, giving us ownership and participation in the Koha community. (Type: Public)

Customer service was already very good to excellent, so question asking to rate worse or better is answered as neutral because service remains very good to excellent. (Type: Public)

With open source, it is not just the ILS that matters, but the support vendor. ByWater does well for our consortium, but they cannot keep up. And many of the things we'd like to implement are "developments" and cost plenty of money. It would have been nice to know more about that aspect before the launch date. (Type: Academic)

We recently (prior to Fall15 quarter) migrated from Insignia to Bywater's Koha and are still working on setting up the ILS to meet our needs. Bywater has exhibited great customer service in this regard. I expect that the functionality of and our satisfaction with Koha will increase as we work together. How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? The library's print resources include course reserves which are highly utilized but not all of them are currently checking out to the appropriate due dates- manual selection of due date & time are someitmesrequired. How likely is it that this library would consider implementing an open source ILS? Bywater Koha is an open source ILS. (Type: Academic)

August 2015 we migrated from SirsiDynix Symphony to Koha 3.18 with support from ByWaterSolutions. Overall, it has been a good experience. (Type: Academic)

We changed from OCLC because we could no longer afford to use it, we now have Bookware Suite which suits our needs fine. Since we are so rural, we have not used ILL in three years due to costs. We now have Zip Books a grant program from the State. Zip Books grant ends this year, however I am hoping it will continue somewhat with a shared cost. (Type: Public)

Much happier with the enhancement process with open source ILS. (Type: Public)

Kohi ILS is remarkably slow, which I suspect is a communication issue. When combined with the convoluted workflow it is very frustrating. Also, it often makes transpositions in the database- which could also be caused by the communication issues. I would recommend any library considering this ILS so self host, maybe eliminating some of the transaction delay. I would also suggest to the developers that someone start working on some kind of script or app type ported interface. This would be quicker than HTML, and the workflows could be designed much better. (Type: Public)

It seems like a long time to fix "bugs" in our system. (Type: Public)

Koha doesn't seem to work well for our public schools. So many basic reports and functions that seem to be commonly used in the publics schools either aren't available and have to be created, or they don't work. It is not an easy or convenient system to use. It's also been unreliable. I would prefer a pre-made package that is especially for the elementary school. Bywater has been great, but I just feel that Koha isn't the right fit for us (Type: School)

The system is not designed for school libraries and we don't want to be the ones to develop the program. We would like a program that is already developed and works effectively in a school setting. There has been some confusion on who we go to for support - it has been mostly directed in house. Now that we are aware of how easy it is to contact ByWater we will do that first. ByWater has been good with training and trying to troubleshoot issues but we would like a program that is fully developed for an elementary school. (Type: School)

Bywater is fantastic to work with, but their rates for ongoing support are steep for small libraries. We will probably have to drop support soon. A minimal support option at a greatly discounted rate would be wonderful once the initial difficulties are settled, or ramped up training to allow libraries to continue on their own. Teach a librarian to fish... (Type: Public)

We are generally satisfied with Koha and BWS. Primary problems are in the area of development and old, uncorrected software bugs. Based on our experience, the existing model of development with BWS leaves much to be desired due to poor communication and lack of collaboration with clients. These problems are compounded when development is slow or behind schedule. A new development process should be implemented that emphasizes better communication and customer involvement. A possible improvement could be the creation of formal design specifications that include a description of the work to be done and the costs (client should pay for this analysis). Once develpment is funded, BWS should collaborate and work with the customer(s) during development to ensure that a workable solution is developed. If the development requires significant or complex pages, users should be included in the screen design. The emphasis on communication and collaboration may also keep projects on time. (Type: Academic)

ILS