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
Public68
Academic70
School10
Consortium4
Special16

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


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2016 results according to the type and size of the library.

KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2697.57 657.71157.802937.6687.251116.552
ILSFunctionality2697.35 657.37157.472937.4386.251116.822
PrintFunctionality2687.60 658.08157.602937.3087.751117.182
ElectronicFunctionality2606.07 656.12155.602896.1386.381116.092
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2567.36 637.52157.202877.5388.131106.302
CompanyLoyalty2497.07 597.12156.132897.2688.251106.102



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 23284.36%

Average Collection size: 134577

TypeCount
Public105
Academic86
School12
Consortium2
Special24

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



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 113.97%
Considering new Interface277 3311.91%
System Installed on time?277 24889.53%

Average Collection size: 145133

TypeCount
Public120
Academic64
School13
Consortium10
Special23

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
Public99
Academic56
School13
Consortium8
Special20

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
Public75
Academic52
School13
Consortium5
Special17

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
Public69
Academic38
School7
Consortium3
Special15

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
Public73
Academic43
School11
Consortium3
Special14

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
Public56
Academic30
School9
Consortium5
Special8

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

We are very pleased with the customer service from Bywater Solutions, who hosts our Koha ILS. They are very responsive to issues and work hard to alleviate problems that arise. There are some problems with the Koha acquisitions module since some vendors do not provide EDI interface with Koha yet. It is interesting to work with a community of people worldwide who are dedicated to improving the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I'm generally satisfied, but not at all wowed, by what we have and by anything we've looked at. Seems to me like all the programmers have got us doing the same things as the other guys, blah, blah, blah. Seems like we are waiting for the "next big thing" but nobody can picture what that is in order to create it. I mean, the leap from the card catalog to MARC records and OPACs was exciting! Right? What's the next BIG leap forward? When will it happen? How will it change our library lives? THAT is something that would finally have a "wow factor." And that's what I'm hoping for, waiting for, looking for. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We migrated to Koha, hosted by Bywater Solutions and have been very please with the change from our previous ILS, Sirsi Dynix Symphony. Implementation and support have been excellent, with follow up on any unresolved issues consistently done. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater Solutions Koha is a great company that is always keeping their product on the cutting edge of ILS technology. Nothing stagnant about Bywater Solutions Koha and what they offer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Since we are working with Koha as an open source ILS, a few of the questions in this survey are difficult to answer correctly since they don't apply to our situation. We don't have a vendor. Working with our Koha implementation, we bought some service from Biblibre and were happy with that. Since we have only used Koha for a couple of months, it is still early to say how satisfied we are. We are currently very proud of having gone open source and feel excited about taking on a bigger responsibility ourselves. On the other hand, there are som issues from the implementation that we haven't fixed yet. Also, Koha is just a small part of our approach to library systems. Koha, at Stockholm university, handles _only_ circulation. It is part of a bigger infrastructure. We use a self developed system for ILL, stack retrievals and other operations regarding the physical collections. (Whatever the "library collections" mean nowadays..) We use the national union catalog for cataloging and as "opac" (such an archaic concept). Currently using SFX as link resolver and looking at implementing CORAL for ERM things. A locally developed integration layer handles communication between the components of our "decoupled" library system, other university systems etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

KOHA is a good product, but our local IT person is the one that is in charge of it. Last spring it was working fine. But some updates were installed and now it seems when one problem is fixed another problem develops. It has been rather frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are very happy with Koha and pleased with Bywater Solutions support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used open source (Koha) since 2009 starting with Liblime as our support vendor. We switched to Bywater Solutions in 2012 and have been very happy with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Excellent service over several years from the support company that manages our ILS. Only a few irritants with Koha, otherwise it performs exceptionally well. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Basic functionality is still lacking (cannot search by subtitles), cannot printed slips for renewal sessions, report interface is a separate interface that cannot export cleanly into Excel, cannot link from ILS to web based email etc. KOHA by PTFS has not delivered all that was required at go live which was 4 years ago. KOHA by PTFS is now attempting to merge their academic code with public library code "sometime" this fall. Would leave if we could. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

For an FOSS, Koha is the best for us as far as features, functionality, sustainability, stability of the system, and general altruistic value of the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha es el mejor SIGB (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We used Equinox as a support vendor last year and were not happy with them. We have contracted with our former systems librarian to provide support and we are very happy with him. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The transition from Horizon to Bywater has been painful, even three years later. Bywater's KOHA is riddled with bugs and inefficient processes. New versions are released periodically, but most problems need to be funded by subscribers. Bywater is understaffed, and seems poorly managed. Once, they turned off access to our 1,100 student middle school because they thought someone there caused a problem. They did not notify the school or the school librarian. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

There are small glitches such as the cursor not staying with the checkin field, and the new method of pulling reports is cumbersome, AND about 20% of the time the system will report, upon checkin "not checked out" when it has been, making me worry that the count for materials checkin will not be accurate at the end of the reporting period. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are curious about FOLIO -- but, as with Kuali OLE before, FOLIO is not ready and there is no network of proven support companies, though eventually EBSCO will be one such support provider, presumably also in Italy. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

48,903 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

The questions aren't entirely pertinent to the open source model. Some users of open source software have a commercial vendor to provide installation and support; we don't. In our case support and upgrades are provided by the community, and quite adequately. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Library is already running Open Source Koha ILS. Some of the questions are because of this somewhat not applicable. All ILS support of Koha are managed inhouse from the University IT Service and Library IT Specialists. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS support is managed by the library itself (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a completely open source library and are finding open source options to be very effective and cost efficient. The support we receive from ByWater Solutions is superior to any other company I've ever worked with before. They are truly in a class by themselves. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater Solutions is hosting Koha for us. They have been incredibly responsive to requests for support and customization. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Shared system - [... ] consortium. Plusses: consortium ILL, consortium tech support, title integration. Minus: limited local administration; issues that we feel needing change back-burner. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

La biblioteca está muy conforme con el Koha, el tema que cualquier cambio mayor o menor para hacer, no se tiene el apoyo informático suficiente. Soy partidaria del Open Access pero es difícil conseguir buen soporte informático para estos paquetes. Me gustaría implementar el repositorio institucional con DSpace y poder combinar el Koha con VuFind para mejorar la herramienta de descubrimiento. Sé que se está trabajando al respecto porque en la lista del Koha se ha comentado, pero aún no ha habido aviso de su implementación. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

It's great that we are able to customize the system. The only downside is that we also need to have the time and the knowledge to do so. It's also great that we own our data. For the most part, technical support has been good. But since we do a lot of customization, we've found some bugs in our open source system. So waiting for bug fixes has negatively influenced our support experiences. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Bywater is an excellent company to work with! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater support has been great. Koha itself has been a bit of a challenge. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha is very adaptable to our needs within our library. As a member of a consortium, we are able to readily share our items efficiently, as well as obtain many items which were previously out of reach for our customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have just migrated to Koha, supported by Bywater Solutions. We are therefore still getting used to the system. Ebsco Discovery in particular needs more attention from us. We have access to Novelist K-8 right in our OPAC, AND WE LOVE IT; so do our students. I would make the switch just for that, if it came to it. There have been significant gains in terms of getting an acquisitions module, and in terms of being able to control the cataloging process. We have yet to explore the Authorities module. We'd like to see more thought about the needs of children, but of course we were aware going into this that we were part of a tiny minority within the Koha community. It's a really different experience getting support from a small company like Bywater as opposed to a giant like Follett. Both upsides and downsides to it, of course. In general, I would totally recommend the system and support company. But there is a piece of it that is more labor intensive... so some really strapped smaller libraries with staffing issues may not be able to deal with the demands. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

ByWater has been great to work with. They know the product and their support process, while a little informal at times, is highly effective. After 5 years with ByWater supporting our local Koha server, we moved it to their cloud-based hosting service this year to save on hardware upgrade costs. The transition was very smooth and we are quite pleased. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use KOHA with Equinox as our host/support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use Koha and this was also being used for our Institutional repository, albeit not very successfully. We're using a mendeley group at the moment for this, but are trying to get internal support for a dedicated institutional repository system, eg DSpace, Omeka, etc. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The vendors are excellent and the product is great for users - it is not particularly intuitive or streamlined at the back-end, ie creating custom reports, and further training is prohibitively expensive. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater does a good job as does [...] , the local subdivision of the [...] which manages our Koha shared catalog. Not perfect, but effective and economical for a small rural library. Saves us thousands of dollars every year. [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I haven't done this survey before so I'm not sure what previous rating were like. I'm hoping that next year we can tackle some of the problems such which have surfaced as the result of new staff (1 person, we're a two person library) starting to use the system (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Nuestra biblioteca trabaja desde hace 4 años aproximadamente con un SIGB en código abierto, el cual ha sido muy satisfactorio en toda la gestión de nuestros recursos impresos y electrónicos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

As we are using KOHA ILS which is an Open Source System, we manage this on our own. From system upgrading, maintenance all are done by our own IT team. We are also using Drupal CMS for our library system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Adoptamos KOHA, no tiene un soporte de una empresa, sino que cooperativamente se van resolviendo cuestiones ligadas a su desarrollo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Hasta este momento nuestro SIGB, esta ofreciendo el servicio deseado. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We actually used ByWater Solutions to assist us in converting our records to the MARC format and they also did the data migration; which helped a great deal because they can "express" it to the IT Staff. Our Internal IT department supported most of our issues, but they dialogued closely with ByWater Solutions on the IT related issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Software is no longer used in the library functions, many historic books have been dispersed. Koha was implemented some time ago, with opensource code, no support from any vendor, but was discontinued a few years ago.[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small)

KOHA ILS was implemented at the Library of the [...] , by our own IT staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Migrated from Millennium to KOHA (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Questions were not very applicable to libraries that already use an open source ILS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Love Koha. Very happy with the open source community! (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We didn't go through a third party to install Koha--we downloaded it from koha-community.org and did all the work ourselves. Support has been provided by other Koha users. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We implemented and support Koha ourselves. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have filled int his survey. Our Systems Support Librarian will review the database entry. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

KOHA and BYWATER Solutions are a great resource for us... High marks for continuous improvement and great pricing... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha is a great ILS for our uses as a specialty research library. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We currently use KOHA. We left SirsiDynix because of the dollar amount, the functionality, and support. Bywater Solutions has been a great help. They are open to changes and have worked with us to implement ideas. The OPAC is responsive and used often. We are going to be making some amendments to it this year. Our IT Administrator has been able to amend it to include a slideshow, lists, etc. We've even connected it to our virtual library (www.huntsvillelibrary.ca) via eSolutions and update the slideshow that path. A challenge is that they are a U.S. company and the dollar is flexible. They were open to renegotiation of the contract. Upgrades are always a challenge. I find that the 'notes' provided prior do not include all the changes. After updates staff always say 'hey - where did they go? why is it doing this now?' Occasionally the vendor is surprised (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The number above is the total physical items in the library's collection April 1, 2016 - not downloadable items available through Download Library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I had KOHA open source installed by my free lance IT guy in 2011. He does the system and equipment upgrades and handles any issues I might have with the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha es un sistema muy flexible y adaptable. ha sido de gran ayuda en nuestra biblioteca. La empresa BibliOrion en México nos ha auxiliado en la resolución de nuestras dudas. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our KOHA system is very effective for us at the present time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha nos ha permitido organizar eficazmente nuestra biblioteca especializada en farmacéutica y obtener cualquier informe que requiramos. BibliOrion nos ha proveído un excelente soporte técnico. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

KOHA has proved very productive to satisfy our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I answered as independent Koha Library. Some municipalities in Finland fouded a Limited company owned by municipalities. It is named (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are using Koha an open source ILS that is managed jointly by all the regional libraries. The end game with Koha is that it could be implemented nationally one day that all libraries would have the same ILS. The ILS is still being worked on which means that a few functionalities are missing and there are plenty of bugs in the system. Many of our library workers wish that the system could have been more complete before we migrated to it but the reason it was implemented now was dependent on the rising costs from the previous system. However, the ILS is improving slowly but surely and we are starting to get the benefits from having a regionally integrated system. The biggest problem was not because of the system itself even though it is incomplete but the time it took for the librarians to get used to it. Even if the system has been a strain on our library staff, the ILS from the perspective of our patrons it has been better than the previous system. The current open source system has a better web interface than the previous one and as such managing their library information has been never been as easy as now. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We were one of the first libraries to use Koha through our present company and now lots of much bigger company and university libraries are using it. We have felt this year that maybe our needs aren't being taken into consideration as much as before. Also I think the company will need to engage more staff in order to develop new products and ensure when they are released that they work properly. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] has been slow but is undergoing a server upgrade soon which supposedly will make it speedier. The search function is poor. Even when putting in exact title, it may appear on page two or three of search. This is a major drawback. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been using Open Source ILS Koha since October 2011. We have implemented completely in-house and did not take any assistance from any Vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The cost of hosting and support seems very high to us for the minimal service we need. We are already "saving" due to being part of a group purchase/support deal through a library consortium. If we decided to switch away from Open Source that would be the main reason. Perhaps you should include questions about cost / cost range in your surveys? (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been happy with ByWater Solutions and Koha for over 5 years now. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We belong to the [..] consortium and have not been particularly active in development of the product due to our staff size limitations. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very happy with Koha and with Bywater. We do regret that we no longer have a "claims returned" process (Verso had a nice one). Nor do holds roll over automatically to the next person waiting. But for 99% of what we do Koha works perfectly and the support from Bywater has been exemplary. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The question "Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?" has an answer with a worse/better range. I chose 5 because they seem to be about the same this year as last. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I haven't been in this library for very long, so I don't know the answer regarding implementation of our current system, and there was not an option to answer N/A. Also, my library goes with what my consortium goes with. So, some of the other questions would have been answered as N/A also. And I don't know what discovery products are, and I don't know if we use an open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The only difficulty I've had with Koha is doing inventory. I wish there was an easier way to go about it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are currently in a transition period where Koha is used as our traditional ILS and Intota is used to manage many aspects of our e-resources. We implemented Koha independently so many of these questions are N/A. We considered and had positive interactions with Bywater but we ultimately implemented Koha ourselves as an interim solution. We had originally planned to switch to Intota v2 but now plan to switch to Alma with the demise of the Intota line post-merger. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

the ils needs better Spanish reading interface and I would like greater discovery of e-resources and relevant events (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ByWater Solutions' support is easy to use and truly supportive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Support vendor and host is Equinox Software (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have already an open source ILS (KOHA) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

KOHA is an open ILS which has a great potential for the library. The main challege is support to make it fully functional to it full potential. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Some comments: We are managing ILS by ourselves and also supporting other libraries in Georgia to implement KOHA. We consider discovery products, but no clear decision at this moment. Problems with managing e-resources: currently KOHA has tool to import MARC records, but has no direct solution for deleting records via the same tool. Which is inconvenient when we work with databases (e.g. e-books) where records are added/deleted frequently. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been with our current system for just over a year. There are certain things that don't work quite the way we would like, but part of that is because we are using it as a consortium and have different policies from library to library. The rest is minor and fixes are being worked on. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a stand-alone library using open source KOHA. We are very satisfied with support from individuals involved. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of a Consortium and do not contract for our ILS on our own. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I just became the librarian here in September so I do not know the answer to some of these questions, I am giving you my best guess! (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha is emerging as the most preferred ILS, especially in India as there have been significant customisation efforts by Koha Community and also major Service Vendors like Informatics India Ltd. satisfying the functional needs of Indian Libraries including Academic (Large and Small), Special and Public. Informatics India, has set up separate Library Technology Division to support the libraries in training, installation and local adaptation of Koha and its integration with various components of Digital Library Systems used in India. . The company provides cloud based hosting ervice to Libraries for ILS and Institutional Repositories (IR) making IT infrastructure management affordable to Indian libraries. This company also organises National Koha Conclave as an annual event in February to bring Koha community on a common platform for developmental exchanges. Apart from this a number of Seminars on Koha are being organised in India. More than 500 libraries are currently using Koha in India. The Supreme Court of India has instructed all High Courts to implement Koha in their libraries. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research is using Koha for its network of 50 research libraries and has its Union catalog(KnowGate) Union Catalogue for all its Institutions on Koha platform. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), another research cluster has adapted Koha for its 100+ libraries. Most of the universities in Karnataka State have already implemented Koha and others planning to go for it soon. While most of the libraries in India plan to switchover to Koha retrospective cataloging and catalog record migration remains the main challenge as many of the legacy ILS systems and their OPAC records are not MARC compliant. Informatics has been successful in addressing these challenges. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Nous avons toujours koha 3.0 et nous envisageons une mise à jour vers 3.22 Le nouveau prestataire choisi : Tamil (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Marché attribué à Biblibre fin 2016. Réinformatisation en cours (date de mise en production en juillet 2017 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)

We are a small library still being developed. In June of 2016 the library used an Excel spreadsheet. We chose an open source ILS because of cost and functionality. ByWater Solutions has been cognizant of our progress and worked with me at our pace. I am a solo librarian, some projects take me longer to complete. They have been amazing, patient and helpful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The only reason we're considering another ILS is because we'd like to join our statewide consortium - we love Koha! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha was implemented at ESCAP Library by a hired consultant in 2014. Unfortunately, the work was not truly completed. No real customization was done and verification of data migration was not done and significant parts of our collection never migrated succesfully. Furthermore, we have been without a systems librarian or assistant since April 2015, so no upgrades or maintenance have been conducted and capacity is not available to investigate customizaiton or migration issues. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

I have used a few different library programs. I find Koha easy to manage. It serves our library well in terms of circulation and reports. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

ByWater Solutions is not an ILS vendor but rather is a service company for Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS