Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Koha -- LibLime


2017 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction22 2 1 2 1 5 4 4 3 66.237
ILS Functionality22 2 1 2 5 4 5 3 66.367
Print Functionality21 1 2 2 2 11 3 87.248
Electronic Functionality20 1 4 1 6 1 4 3 66.006
Company Satisfaction22 1 2 2 2 2 1 4 5 3 85.917
Support Satisfaction22 1 2 2 2 3 5 3 4 76.277
Support Improvement20 4 3 4 3 2 3 1 35.455
Company Loyalty21 3 1 1 1 3 4 2 6 95.717
Open Source Interest21 2 1 2 1 2 2 11 96.819

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS22 731.82%
Considering new Interface22 313.64%
System Installed on time?22 1986.36%

Average Collection size: 173857

TypeCount
Public8
Academic4
School0
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00012
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction30 1 1 7 1 9 8 3 76.677
ILS Functionality30 1 1 6 3 10 7 2 76.537
Print Functionality29 1 1 1 2 3 4 14 3 87.038
Electronic Functionality28 1 2 2 6 5 8 4 75.796
Company Satisfaction30 1 1 6 5 5 10 2 86.537
Support Satisfaction29 1 3 5 2 8 7 3 76.487
Support Improvement28 1 1 3 9 6 3 4 1 55.646
Company Loyalty27 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 3 7 95.897
Open Source Interest28 2 1 1 4 2 1 3 14 96.969

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS31 825.81%
Considering new Interface31 722.58%
System Installed on time?31 2787.10%

Average Collection size: 93177

TypeCount
Public12
Academic6
School2
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00017
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[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.

Koha -- LibLimeallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS326.41 510136.462012
ILSFunctionality326.56 510136.382012
PrintFunctionality326.91 510136.772012
ElectronicFunctionality314.55 510135.692012
SatisfactionCustomerSupport325.94 510136.232012
CompanyLoyalty325.53 510136.152012



2015 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction32 1 1 3 4 5 8 5 5 76.417
ILS Functionality32 1 2 2 2 4 9 9 3 76.567
Print Functionality32 1 2 2 1 1 8 11 6 86.918
Electronic Functionality31 6 1 2 3 2 3 5 2 3 4 04.555
Company Satisfaction32 2 1 2 4 5 2 3 4 9 96.097
Support Satisfaction32 2 3 5 1 4 3 7 7 85.947
Support Improvement30 3 1 2 2 7 4 1 5 5 55.536
Company Loyalty32 4 1 3 2 1 3 3 1 6 8 95.536
Open Source Interest28 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 14 96.439

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS34 38.82%
Considering new Interface34 514.71%
System Installed on time?34 2882.35%

Average Collection size: 246303

TypeCount
Public15
Academic6
School1
Consortium2
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00018
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction25 1 1 4 4 8 5 2 76.527
ILS Functionality25 1 1 3 8 10 2 76.166
Print Functionality24 1 1 1 3 7 7 4 77.137
Electronic Functionality25 2 1 1 6 6 1 4 4 45.085
Company Satisfaction25 3 2 3 1 8 2 6 76.367
Support Satisfaction25 2 2 2 2 1 4 7 5 86.287
Support Improvement25 1 1 2 2 5 1 6 2 5 75.967
Company Loyalty25 4 1 1 3 1 6 5 4 75.847
Open Source Interest22 1 1 2 1 4 13 97.329

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS26 623.08%
Considering new Interface26 830.77%
System Installed on time?26 2492.31%

Average Collection size: 284374

TypeCount
Public13
Academic4
School2
Consortium2
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction17 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 85.657
ILS Functionality17 1 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 3 75.657
Print Functionality17 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 6 96.357
Electronic Functionality16 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 04.565
Company Satisfaction17 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 95.186
Support Satisfaction17 1 3 3 2 3 5 95.005
Support Improvement17 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 4 94.825
Company Loyalty17 6 1 2 1 1 1 5 04.534
Open Source Interest15 1 2 1 1 10 97.009

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS17 529.41%
Considering new Interface17 529.41%
System Installed on time?17 1482.35%

Average Collection size: 414741

TypeCount
Public6
Academic3
School2
Consortium2
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0008
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction32 3 1 2 3 2 4 7 5 5 75.847
ILS Functionality32 1 2 4 4 3 2 8 6 2 75.697
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction32 2 1 6 4 2 2 4 8 3 85.536
Support Satisfaction32 2 2 1 4 2 2 3 5 8 3 85.567
Support Improvement30 1 1 1 3 1 10 5 4 2 2 55.275
Company Loyalty32 8 1 1 1 5 4 2 7 3 04.786
Open Source Interest30 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 16 96.739

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS34 514.71%
Considering new Interface34 25.88%
System Installed on time?34 2779.41%

Average Collection size: 131383

TypeCount
Public14
Academic12
School1
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00018
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction47 5 1 3 2 3 5 6 9 9 4 75.476
ILS Functionality45 2 1 4 3 3 2 6 16 6 2 75.647
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction46 6 3 6 3 3 4 5 4 9 3 84.635
Support Satisfaction47 3 6 7 4 4 7 5 9 2 84.665
Support Improvement46 2 1 3 4 6 13 4 4 6 3 55.115
Company Loyalty47 11 4 4 2 1 3 5 5 7 5 04.325
Open Source Interest41 7 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 22 96.349

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS48 1225.00%
Considering new Interface48 918.75%
System Installed on time?48 3572.92%

Average Collection size: 156716

TypeCount
Public21
Academic13
School5
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00027
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 2 1 2 4 10 8 4 76.907
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction30 2 3 2 8 2 5 3 5 55.906
Support Satisfaction31 1 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 6 2 85.656
Support Improvement31 2 1 1 3 10 3 5 1 5 55.555
Company Loyalty31 6 1 3 5 3 4 4 5 05.236
Open Source Interest28 1 1 2 24 98.509

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS31 412.90%
Considering new Interface31 722.58%
System Installed on time?31 2787.10%

Average Collection size: 176160

TypeCount
Public11
Academic5
School3
Consortium2
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00015
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0005
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction49 5 1 4 4 9 14 9 3 76.127
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction49 2 2 4 3 3 6 7 13 7 2 75.476
Support Satisfaction49 4 1 3 5 3 5 7 9 10 2 85.356
Support Improvement45 6 3 1 6 4 7 4 7 2 5 54.625
Company Loyalty48 12 1 1 1 9 3 8 9 4 04.906
Open Source Interest46 2 1 3 1 39 98.209

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS49 510.20%
Considering new Interface49 36.12%
System Installed on time?49 3979.59%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- LibLime Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction25 3 2 2 6 3 6 3 65.926
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction25 2 1 3 2 1 2 6 4 4 75.847
Support Satisfaction25 2 1 1 1 2 4 5 2 3 4 65.526
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty25 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 2 7 95.246
Open Source Interest20 1 2 1 16 98.059

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS25 520.00%
Considering new Interface25 00.00%
System Installed on time?25 2080.00%




2 Responses for Koha -- LibLime in 2007

2017 : gen: 6.23 company 5.91 loyalty 5.71 support 6.27

2016 : gen: 6.67 company 6.53 loyalty 5.89 support 6.48

2015 : gen: 6.41 company 6.09 loyalty 5.53 support 5.94

2014 : gen: 6.52 company 6.36 loyalty 5.84 support 6.28

2013 : gen: 5.65 company 5.18 loyalty 4.53 support 5.00

2012 : gen: 5.84 company 5.53 loyalty 4.78 support 5.56

2011 : gen: 5.47 company 4.63 loyalty 4.32 support 4.66

2010 : gen: 6.90 company 5.90 loyalty 5.23 support 5.65

2009 : gen: 6.12 company 5.47 loyalty 4.90 support 5.35

2008 : gen: 5.92 company 5.84 loyalty 5.24 support 5.52

Comments

[...] (Type: Public)

- 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)

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 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)

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

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)

[...] 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)

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

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)

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)

ILS