Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Koha -- Independent


2017 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction44 1 2 3 10 12 16 97.738
ILS Functionality44 1 1 1 2 10 12 17 97.758
Print Functionality44 1 1 2 6 13 21 97.898
Electronic Functionality41 3 2 1 1 3 3 5 8 6 9 96.077
Company Satisfaction35 1 3 4 5 7 15 97.638
Support Satisfaction36 2 1 1 4 2 2 11 13 97.068
Support Improvement34 1 3 8 5 7 10 96.918
Company Loyalty36 2 1 2 5 6 7 13 96.948
Open Source Interest39 2 2 3 32 98.219

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS44 24.55%
Considering new Interface44 920.45%
System Installed on time?44 2556.82%

Average Collection size: 162433

TypeCount
Public5
Academic20
School3
Consortium0
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00021
[3] 100,001-250,0008
[4] 250,001-1,000,0007
[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.

Koha -- IndependentallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS757.60 267.8877.712106.900167.330
ILSFunctionality757.47 267.5077.142107.100167.330
PrintFunctionality757.69 268.1577.572106.900167.830
ElectronicFunctionality745.97 266.4676.142105.300167.000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport686.63 257.4076.43285.630156.400
CompanyLoyalty636.24 216.6276.14285.000157.000



2016 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction75 2 1 3 9 12 23 25 97.608
ILS Functionality75 2 6 7 15 26 19 87.478
Print Functionality75 1 1 3 6 12 28 24 87.698
Electronic Functionality74 2 6 2 7 13 6 16 15 7 75.977
Company Satisfaction69 1 1 2 4 7 9 9 17 19 96.968
Support Satisfaction68 1 2 2 3 3 7 7 12 16 15 86.637
Support Improvement68 1 2 2 4 15 9 8 10 17 96.507
Company Loyalty63 4 5 3 2 2 4 4 7 13 19 96.248
Open Source Interest66 3 1 2 2 1 7 50 98.069

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS78 45.13%
Considering new Interface78 1519.23%
System Installed on time?78 5064.10%

Average Collection size: 253881

TypeCount
Public11
Academic39
School6
Consortium0
Special12

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,00010
[4] 250,001-1,000,0008
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0004
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction44 1 2 1 1 5 11 23 97.899
ILS Functionality45 1 1 1 1 5 17 19 97.898
Print Functionality45 2 1 1 1 4 14 22 97.848
Electronic Functionality44 2 1 5 4 5 14 6 7 76.457
Company Satisfaction36 1 1 3 2 8 7 14 97.478
Support Satisfaction35 3 1 4 2 5 11 9 86.808
Support Improvement34 2 1 2 1 7 3 3 6 9 96.327
Company Loyalty32 7 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 10 95.387
Open Source Interest35 3 1 1 1 29 97.869

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 36.52%
Considering new Interface46 613.04%
System Installed on time?46 3269.57%

Average Collection size: 224897

TypeCount
Public7
Academic15
School4
Consortium0
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00023
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction51 2 1 3 14 17 14 87.678
ILS Functionality51 1 1 3 4 10 17 15 87.538
Print Functionality46 1 2 2 6 20 15 87.898
Electronic Functionality48 4 1 7 5 4 11 10 6 76.047
Company Satisfaction46 2 1 3 5 16 19 97.938
Support Satisfaction44 1 1 3 3 5 6 10 15 97.208
Support Improvement42 1 3 11 2 4 8 13 96.888
Company Loyalty37 2 1 2 2 2 6 9 13 97.118
Open Source Interest44 1 1 1 2 3 36 98.489

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS53 35.66%
Considering new Interface53 713.21%
System Installed on time?53 3362.26%

Average Collection size: 298934

TypeCount
Public6
Academic24
School6
Consortium0
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00029
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0005
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction42 1 1 1 9 14 16 97.938
ILS Functionality42 1 1 1 2 7 16 14 87.748
Print Functionality42 1 1 1 2 2 17 18 98.008
Electronic Functionality38 2 2 2 1 2 7 7 8 7 86.327
Company Satisfaction36 1 1 2 1 3 10 18 97.869
Support Satisfaction36 1 1 4 6 5 19 97.729
Support Improvement35 1 1 1 8 4 4 6 10 96.717
Company Loyalty37 3 1 1 2 1 1 7 21 97.499
Open Source Interest37 3 1 1 1 1 30 97.689

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS45 24.44%
Considering new Interface45 511.11%
System Installed on time?45 3066.67%

Average Collection size: 2163175

TypeCount
Public8
Academic19
School6
Consortium1
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction39 1 1 1 8 15 13 87.778
ILS Functionality39 1 1 4 7 9 17 97.778
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction36 1 1 1 1 3 4 11 14 97.508
Support Satisfaction34 2 1 1 1 2 6 12 9 86.978
Support Improvement34 2 2 6 2 6 7 9 96.747
Company Loyalty33 3 2 1 1 3 6 17 97.009
Open Source Interest35 2 1 2 30 98.379

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS40 25.00%
Considering new Interface40 512.50%
System Installed on time?40 2665.00%

Average Collection size: 287179

TypeCount
Public10
Academic15
School2
Consortium0
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 1 2 5 12 11 87.978
ILS Functionality31 1 1 1 9 9 10 97.618
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction26 1 1 3 4 8 9 97.358
Support Satisfaction26 3 1 1 1 1 4 9 6 86.628
Support Improvement24 1 2 1 5 4 6 5 86.427
Company Loyalty24 3 4 1 6 10 96.888
Open Source Interest22 1 1 1 2 17 98.419

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS31 00.00%
Considering new Interface31 516.13%
System Installed on time?31 2064.52%

Average Collection size: 114492

TypeCount
Public4
Academic16
School3
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00014
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction38 1 3 9 7 18 97.878
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction32 2 3 4 1 6 16 97.449
Support Satisfaction34 2 4 4 1 7 16 97.388
Support Improvement34 2 1 2 4 3 4 18 97.449
Company Loyalty34 2 2 1 1 4 4 20 97.569
Open Source Interest34 1 1 1 31 98.689

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS39 12.56%
Considering new Interface39 37.69%
System Installed on time?39 2871.79%

Average Collection size: 73783

TypeCount
Public15
Academic12
School5
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction26 4 5 10 7 87.778
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction22 1 3 4 5 9 97.828
Support Satisfaction23 2 2 4 6 9 97.788
Support Improvement21 1 8 2 2 8 56.957
Company Loyalty21 1 2 1 1 3 13 97.819
Open Source Interest20 1 19 98.859

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS27 13.70%
Considering new Interface27 13.70%
System Installed on time?27 1762.96%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 3 2 2 77.868
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 3 3 88.298
Support Satisfaction7 3 2 2 77.868
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty7 1 2 4 98.439
Open Source Interest7 1 6 98.869

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 00.00%
Considering new Interface7 00.00%
System Installed on time?7 342.86%




3 Responses for Koha -- Independent in 2007

2017 : gen: 7.73 company 7.63 loyalty 6.94 support 7.06

2016 : gen: 7.60 company 6.96 loyalty 6.24 support 6.63

2015 : gen: 7.89 company 7.47 loyalty 5.38 support 6.80

2014 : gen: 7.67 company 7.93 loyalty 7.11 support 7.20

2013 : gen: 7.93 company 7.86 loyalty 7.49 support 7.72

2012 : gen: 7.77 company 7.50 loyalty 7.00 support 6.97

2011 : gen: 7.97 company 7.35 loyalty 6.88 support 6.62

2010 : gen: 7.87 company 7.44 loyalty 7.56 support 7.38

2009 : gen: 7.77 company 7.82 loyalty 7.81 support 7.78

2008 : gen: 7.86 company 8.29 loyalty 8.43 support 7.86

Comments

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

ILS