Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Koha

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2018 results according to the type and size of the library.

KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2537.66 637.37117.641777.95117.45087.384
ILSFunctionality2527.42 637.13116.911777.70117.00086.884
PrintFunctionality2467.80 627.50118.091758.11117.55087.504
ElectronicFunctionality2336.30 625.82115.550706.77115.73086.134
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2437.73 627.55117.181758.03108.30076.864
CompanyLoyalty2467.48 637.44117.181777.90117.73067.834



2018 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction253 1 2 2 2 4 10 13 55 78 86 97.668
ILS Functionality252 1 2 3 4 4 7 20 69 83 59 87.428
Print Functionality246 2 1 1 5 7 16 39 83 92 97.808
Electronic Functionality233 8 2 6 5 14 36 32 62 36 32 76.307
Company Satisfaction244 1 2 3 4 5 8 15 33 61 112 97.778
Support Satisfaction243 1 4 2 4 6 6 16 31 65 108 97.738
Support Improvement236 4 1 3 5 20 47 17 35 45 59 96.677
Company Loyalty246 13 4 3 2 14 11 25 57 117 97.488
Open Source Interest218 15 2 3 3 6 1 6 16 166 97.919

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS254 176.69%
Considering new Interface254 197.48%
System Installed on time?254 23090.55%

Average Collection size: 107670

TypeCount
Public89
Academic78
School8
Consortium4
Special24

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00011
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction360 2 4 2 11 13 32 84 114 98 87.498
ILS Functionality358 2 1 4 3 12 16 45 86 116 73 87.278
Print Functionality356 4 2 1 4 12 9 22 65 131 106 87.588
Electronic Functionality342 12 5 15 14 19 42 58 59 75 43 86.177
Company Satisfaction345 1 3 4 4 7 20 29 53 95 129 97.598
Support Satisfaction345 3 3 1 6 10 24 29 53 79 137 97.528
Support Improvement329 3 1 9 26 84 34 34 62 76 56.617
Company Loyalty339 19 5 7 5 12 28 20 49 61 133 96.998
Open Source Interest325 22 5 2 5 19 10 8 17 24 213 97.469

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS364 328.79%
Considering new Interface364 4512.36%
System Installed on time?364 32489.01%

Average Collection size: 118002

TypeCount
Public124
Academic105
School21
Consortium9
Special31

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[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 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
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%




2018 : gen: 7.66 company 7.77 loyalty 7.48 support 7.73

2017 : gen: 7.49 company 7.59 loyalty 6.99 support 7.52

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 (survey2018)

We are very happy with Bywater Solutions. Their attitude towards us is professional and collegial, and lacks any of the paternalism of companies like Follett, who think they know best what you need. Bywater have worked with us in a very responsive way to customize our OPAC, and their entire approach to Koha is creative, forward-looking and inviting of criticism and improvements. The functionality of Koha and its integration with other products like Ebsco's Novelist Select and Overdrive is really fantastic. Ebsco Discovery also worked with us in an extremely helpful way to implement a discovery page for our elementary students. We are so pleased that we made the switch from Follett Destiny. One of the best decisions we've made. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have an in house Systems Administrator who, working closely with the community, provides us with the necessary support for Koha open source ILS. We make sure that any improvements or patches to bugs are contributed back to the Koha community. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We love Koha in part because we can custom fit it to this library. There are many tweaks and adjustments we can perform ourselves. For example, we can change circulation rules within minutes. And because it is basically international, we can do little things so as to make our community feel welcome, such as offering the catalog interface in Amharic, Arabic, and many other languages. This past year we decided to implement automatic renewals. It took very little time to get this new procedure operating almost exactly as we had wished, and it has been wildly popular among our library users. We find the customer support at ByWater amazing and unusual. We especially appreciate their instant response to the rare Sunday afternoon question - not only answering the call but immediately working with us to resolve the problem. Upgrades? Our previous vendor insisted we close the library so as to fit their 9-5 schedule. ByWater performs them during the night, when we are closed. Little differences like that translate into better public service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Number of items in library's collection includes ebooks (purchased and subscribed). Equinox is our support vendor for our ILS. The people are very nice and very willing to help, but it's clear that they are still learning when it comes to Koha. They're more experienced with Evergreen. But they've been very willing to work with us on any request. We never hear "no" when we ask for something (unlike working with Sirsi). Koha is more limited than Symphony when it comes to options for overdue notices. I miss the flexibility we had with Symphony to send different notices depending on item type and patron category. In pretty much all other ways, we have found Koha to be superior. It is much more user friendly and easy to train library staff on. The OPAC is much more flexible and modern looking. It is easier to integrate with other systems, provided you have adequate knowledge of both systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Looking at alternative discovery products including Summon and Dimensions (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The services provided are excellent. It is just that we need to train our staff at least three to four times a year as we have change of staff. But it is quite expensive to bring someone from Australia to Fiji. But it could be done at least twice a year so that we could fully benefit from this. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

FOLIO is currently considered to be implemented in addition to Koha in order to add electronic resource management functionality. We currently have no plans to fully replace Koha by FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are considering moving to an alternative e-book vendor as our current one has not been very responsive in support when we have had connection issues. The LMS provider has been excellent but it is where the LMS and e-book platforms interact that we have had problems and the e-book supplier has taken far too long to respond to issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Funcionalidades, amigabilidad y adaptabilidad alta de Koha, permitiendo niveles de integración muy altos. Al mismo tiempo los desarrollos tanto a nivel de la comunidad Koha, como de la propia biblioteca, permiten hacer sistemas acordes a las necesidades y expectativas de los usuarios. Potencialidad para gestionar tanto pequeñas como grandes bibliotecas universitarias. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The survey does feel like it does not take our setup with a LSP rather than an ILS, where Koha is only handeling our printed ressources. Also hard to differentiate between the support we get from BibLibre and the support we get from the Scandinavian Koha community (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha is a basic product that does what we need, and we don't have to pay licencing and support for parts of a product not needed. So costs of support are kept to a minimum , which is essential in these times of scarce resources. PTFS as a vendor have been very responsive in their support and developments have been initiated following customer suggestions and feedback. Urgent support calls are dealt with promptly, and there is a good dialogue between client and vendor. We would certainly consider other open source products based on our experience with Koha and PTFS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

PTFS Europe are an excellent company that support an excellent product, Koha. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Library of the [...] has implemented KOHA (ILS) with its own resources. As the IT Manager of the Institution, I have performed myself the first implementation of the open source ILS, and I do the regular maintenance. The description above to illustrate the questions answered with "0" above. We have implemented KOHA and DSPACE for our needs and services, and are very satisfied with the choice. As regarding the maintenance, upgrades, and so on, we do it ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Estamos considerando sumar al catálogo, un repositorio para el patrimonio documental de nuestra institución, también de código abierto en DSpace. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our State Library has become our tech support gateway, and it is working out well for both of us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Actually as of recently Cineca no longer maintains KOHA so we have had to do this ourselves inside our consortium. Thus the answers relating to information about companies is actually outdated. Please note that we have updated the holdings as we have recently had to discard a large portion of the paper holdings. We do however have thousands of electronic resources that are not actually present in the catalog. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our Alma/Primo system will go live in January, 2019, as part of the [...] library consortium. Koha was a decent product, but much of the functionality we lacked after 3+ years required extra money to develop with ByWater Solutions. We were never happy about that. Additionally, one of our member libraries made the leap to Alma/Primo early in the year, so the rest of us decided to follow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

PTFS Europe migrated us to Koha (Open source) from OLIB. The pre-installation planning meetings were very valuable in clarifying our requirements. The ongoing support post-implementation has been effective and assistance with Authority Indexes has been very valuable. The customization of the Koha OPAC interface has a professional appearance which is valuable to the Library Service. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Unfortunately our experience with Koha to date has been extremely poor not to mention frustrating. We have lost a great deal of functionality that was present in our previous LMS, i.e Innovative's Millennium system (A system that was almost twenty years old). The promise of Open Source software such as Koha has been a major disappointment. Our suppliers are frequently reluctant to develop the system any further to accomodate our requirements and even when they agree to carry out additional work, we then have to wait for the Koha community to approve these changes. Koha has caused increased work for our staff and we have not seen any additional benefit in this LMS, in fact the opposite has been the case in our experience. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Re: "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?": We don't include them in our ILS. There was N/A option so the neutral 5 was in place of that. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer service has always been exceptional, there is consistently a quick response and a solution whenever a question is asked. Bywater is an outstanding company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

KOHA Open Source LMS as deployed in the [...] requires significant enhancements/developments. There is no inter library loans module implemented at time of answering this survey. The print book management is just ok however its management, delivery and functionality of ebooks is very poor. This was supplemented by the EBSCO Discovery service which is a clunky and unreliable platform. importing ebook records to Koha from other vendors no API is totally frustrating. Book images and jackets are imported from Google images and in most cases there are no images available for users. Images sizing is not scaled thereby providing an overall poor user experience from the front end catalogue.The support call messages received from EBSCO are increasing where EDS service is becoming unreliable. The Koha classic catalogue accessibility for users with learning support requirements requires development to bring it up to W3Cguidelines.The KOHA serials module is not fit for purpose and also requires significant enhancements. The KOHA cataloguing module/frameworks set up requires additional input from staff and used in conjunction with Acquisitions module it can take hours to have orders placed with vendors and minimal reporting. It has been said that the [...] are either very brave or very stupid! This is not a great place to be given that the [...] migrated from Innovative Interfaces Millennium and the [...] implemented Sierra. What a lost opportunity for collaboration and shared services. Overall the open source route has been fraught with issues where the [...] Librarians are now seeking a review for KOHA TWO YEARS IN! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

We use Koha, it was installed with the help of a volunteer IT expert on the board, and is maintained by the same. All data conversions have been done in house. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

In February of 2019 [...] , the consortium we are part of, will be migrating to Koha with support by ByWater Solutions. We will be happy to have ByWater support once again. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] is in the process of migrating to ByWater Koha and it has been nothing short of exceptional. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

ByWater has been a joy to work with since we started with them 8 years ago. They are quick to respond to tech problems and to help with things I don't know or can't remember how to do. I cannot recommend them enough. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

none (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Implementation of new Bywater Koha ILS currently in progress. We have found Bywater to be knowledgable, helpful, responsive, and timely. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are very satisfied with our decision, last year, to move to an open source solution (KOHA) via CCSR/Collecto. This vendor now supports 32 of the 50 colleges in Québec Canada. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We switched to Koha supported by ByWater this summer. We are very happy wiht the decision. We are currently switching from Primo, SFX and Primo Central to EDS and their Link Resolver. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha is getting better and better all the time! As a small special library, our needs are unique compared with larger, public libraries, but Koha's functionality for us is improving with each upgrade. ByWater's support keeps improving as well, as they grow and evolve as a company. We have been very satisfied with their response time/manner. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been happy with Bywater as a support company for our Koha system. In terms of libraries with large serial sets--there are a few indexing issues if there are too many item records attached to a bib. We have worked around these with a surrogate record that links to the actual record. The acquisitions module can be difficult for libraries that pay tax as there are rounding and calculation issues causing slight variations at times. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha ILS is frequently updated and developed via ByWater. The ILS is a solid workhorse that gets the job done, and permits us to leverage sql queries on the backend to build out an assortment of operational improvements within our organization; it is this last boon that makes us most content. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are not technically on ByWater hosted services until February (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have used the open source KOHA and our IT person set it up. I feel KOHA would be able to do much more if someone with more experience with KOHA was able to be in charge of it. We have taken the least expensive route to have an online catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We self-installed Koha ILS, and have not used any support organizations. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have an entirely electronic collection (save for a trivial number of print items). Koha does the trick for what we are using it for. We have not implemented the modules such as circ & serials. We explored some commercial products - but it seemed that we would get little ROI. I think that we are investing too much in this area and are hoping that these systems do things that these systems are just not good at. (Library type: Business; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

- When compared to our previous system, there are several major functionalities missing. There are workarounds but they take a lot more time and effort (for example bulk editing of biblio-records) - Acquisitions and ILLs modules seem to be underdeveloped, essential functions do not exist. - The process of reporting is too specialized; it requires advanced understanding of SQL because there in no proper user interface built to run reports efficiently. This is an additional workload on library staff. There are community reports but they are often outdated and are not able to replace efficiency we were enjoying in the previous system which could handle all reporting queries without requiring any technical skills at all. - We are a multi-campus organisation and Koha can't handle it efficiently (for example even as an admin librarian, one has to switch between locations to process all suggestions, also loan limits don’t work as expected in multi-campus environment) - It is very easy to crash the system. - Search results are inconsistent and inaccurate. - The user experience around using Koha is poor for both staff and users. - Visually, design of Koha is very poor. - Koha seems to be very efficient in smaller, standalone libraries. However is not suitable for larger academic institutions or networks. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Bywater support is good as long as you are diligent about submitting separate tickets for each issue. It is kind of interesting that you can pay them extra to develop new functionality for the ILS, which then gets incorporated into the Koha codebase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

note EduCampus is the body responsible for procurement Have not seen the contract so cannot be sure on Q above Very disappointed with the application in terms of functionality Feeling that it does not meet basic functionality requirements for higher education libraries Also very clear that application requires a lot more staff time and effort which is extremely challenging in our context (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Koha Searching for known items is difficult & gives too many results. We find the Zebra search very hard to use on the staff side. Too many results returned, no left anchored search or precise index searching available. Prioritizing results is difficult. Adoption of elastic search may resolve some of the issues, but will still be very different from previous ILS. Posting invoices requires many extra steps over our previous system. Acquisitions is very slow. We have to manually perform many tasks that our previous system did automatically. Lending rules are not granular enough for an RI higher education institution. Staff permissions are not granular enough – staff get all or nothing access to functions. Reports are very powerful but require learning SQL. We've asked the vendor to create many reports for us, which they've encouraged. Koha seems less stable than our previous system. Things work fine one day and break the next. Lack of integrated electronic management is a big disappointment. BWS BWS is a very collaborative company to work with. All of the staff, up to the COO and EVP, are accessible and hands-on. BWS staff are friendly, easy to work with, and very knowledgeable about Koha. Vendor is extremely customer focused and listens carefully to our concerns. They worked very closely with us during the migration phase and continue to offer high quality customer service. The staff is eager to learn about our workflow and needs and to help us overcome obstacles we face with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

I believe the support team at Bywater are very helpful and responsive. We have been experiencing some frustration with speed, and how long it takes to receive search results. We currently host Koha on our servers, it gets sometimes frustrating or more difficult to get to the root of a problem sometimes, whether it is our servers, or old computers, or internet service, or something on Bywater's end that sometimes you feel you never quite get an ultimate resolution, and you just have to put up with the slowness, as I say frustrating, but the support team at Bywater is responsive and so I am hoping to have this issue resolved and to know where to look when speed goes down. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The flexibility of open source allows us to customize the ILS to meet the needs of our users. The ability to collaborate with others using Koha is awesome! Bywater is easy to work with as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

ByWater Solutions has been hosting our Koha ILS for seven years. Their technical support and overall customer service has been responsive and reliable; especially their willingness to help with report writing. The hosting fees have been very reasonable. As for Koha, the OPAC, circ module, and cataloging module have served us well and have been relatively easy to maintain. I am a former acquisitions librarian and have always found Koha's acquisitions module counter-intuitive and complicated to work with, but we have gotten used to it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Some questions I couldn't answer because I was not here when our current ILS was implemented. I really like how it works, especially being in a consortium. I do wish there were other search options - such as searching by genre. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

It was not an company that implemented the Koha ILS. It was just me, a librarian eager to help this place with so much history to be known by my institution's students and all people in general. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

SIGB's maintenance is performed by library's employees, I mean, library hasn't a contract with a supplier. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha is our actual system and cover our need... we are considering implement other systems to make public our digital collections. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

This a very small library inside a town, there are not digital collections. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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

We are still in the process of migrating our existing Koha system to being hosted and managed by Bywater Solutions. So far, the transition is going satisfactorily. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The catalog (Koha) contains records for print materials. E-resources are accessed through SFX. Archives are accessed through Fedora/Islandora/Discovery Garden. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We just signed a contract with ByWater and haven't completed the migration. So I left many of the questions blank. I'm We were previously with Insignia from March 2018 to December 2018 but never went live with the OPAC. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our catalogers think everything's fine. Chief Librarian thinks we ought to change something (Koha version, vendor, whatever). May end up just upgrading Lib-Lime Koha to their new integrated version rather than changing vendors. Current "issue" is really one that our institution's I.T. and New Media folks raised wherein we cannot access our catalog at URL that was in the previous library directory you gather (it's been updated now!); our IT folks want searches to run through our own institutional URL for search engine stats, but since the catalog lives on a Lib-Lime server that won't work. Somehow or other the vendor's people and our people cannot generate a mutually satisfying solution. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Self-supported, all my tech support comes from Koha sites and the koha-community and koha-us listservs. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We moved to open source when we moved to Koha in 2012 and are very happy with it. It is extremely economical, by $1000s per annum. It does all that we require. The support we get from Calyx in Sydney is always prompt, helpful and satisfactory. I catalogue books and journal articles on Koha. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

it is observed that there is no provision of issue of loose issues of hard copies of journals in KOHA. this service will be very useful for academic libraries. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've been very impressed and pleased with Koha as provided to us by PTFS-EU. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Libraries implementing an open source system such as Koha would be well advised to have a technician skilled in the database language to communicate with the vendor as well as to be on hand to troubleshoot issues. The implementation needs to be planned out by the library staff as stated by the vendor and when they ask for something, it needs to be worked on asap. We had a clumsy implementation due to lack of preparation, a lack of understanding as to how difficult the transition would be and a subsequent morale issue as staff tried to work thru the issues. Planning needs to be taken very seriously with a dedicated committee or taskforce and an assigned project manager who schedules regular meetings for input. Everything that is impacted by the system such as databases, etcetera needs to be documented. The vendor has been very responsive but communication has been an issue so screenshots have been a must. The vendor also wanted to implement during the summer reading program which was not well received and pushed to August. However with the implementation planning starting in April, not as much work was accomplished as was needed due to the summer reading program absorbing so much attention. It was two weeks at least to get Overdrive working with the system, a month and an half before item processing could resume plus issues with printing receipts at check out and patron notifications on top of weird catalog searching issues for the patrons and staff. As we gain more understanding of how to work the system, I believe our satisfaction will go up but right now I'm between staff who think it's just great and staff who are 'why did we do this! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We migrated to KOHA in 2013 with PFTS (LibLime) and it seemed to go well but there was one challenge after another. It turns out they did not update the software, did not tell us of potential updates, were not open to integrations/ideas, and support was a challenge. We liked KOHA and connected with other vendors to discuss options. Bywater Solutions was great. They migrated all the information for less than $5000, cleared up errors and more. Since then, THEY tell us about scheduled updates, THEY offer suggestions for new steps, THEY provide excellent fast knowledgeable support. If Bywater moved to a new support I would investigate and be open to ideas as I truly believe they wouldn't move to something that didn't work. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Updates tend to be very buggy when released, often taking 6 months to a year to fix problems. The Liblime version has departed from the full open source product so is not able to take advantage of the open source resources for fixes. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have ByWater Solutions Koha and there are almost no reports available, which makes reporting on or analyzing the collection very difficult. We have to design the reports ourselves. It is difficult to get bugs fixed or to get them to understand what the problems are. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

System is up and running upgrades without any problems every release implements new features (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

This library does not own any eresources so could not answer Q4 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are finding aspects of Koha acquisitions to be a bit clumsy and labour intensive (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

El proyecto KOBLI, impulsado por las Bibliotecas de la Administración General del Estado a través de la Subdirección General de Coordinación Bibliotecaria del Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte ha concluido en 2018. Trataremos de migrar a KOHA (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We implemented the system by ourselves. My answers are related to the performance of our Information Technology Office. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha is already an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

since we did implementation of Koha and "service" ourselves, there is no company involved - we benefit greatly from the strong community! so I didn't answer the questions concerning companies or organzistions. but we are very happy and glad and more than satified with the support from the Koha-community! (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

we don't manage any electronic resources in Koha yet with Koha, we are already using an open source ILS (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Through the AspenCat consortium, [...] Library currently uses LibLime-supported Koha. In February 2019, we are migration to ByWater-supported Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Bywater as a vendor has been excellent to work with. There are many improvements within the Acquisitions Module that could make the system better (receiving, paying tracking). Also, searching in the system, billing of patrons, overlaying duplicate records, placing and changing patrons holds and other items could be improved. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I have worked with five different LSPs in the 10 years I have been in librarianship, and Koha is by far the most intuitive and flexible to our needs. The staff at Bywater is an amazing resource for support and innovation, and the community is fantastic. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater support is wonderful. We are in constant touch and they are always trying out new ways to educate and help the end user. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS