| 2022 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 220 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 44 | 86 | 70 | 8 | 7.84 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 219 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 47 | 88 | 59 | 8 | 7.74 | 8 | ||
| Print Functionality | 217 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 36 | 88 | 77 | 8 | 7.93 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 204 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 25 | 32 | 45 | 37 | 33 | 7 | 6.42 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 209 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 32 | 59 | 97 | 9 | 7.97 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 212 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 36 | 56 | 101 | 9 | 7.98 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 209 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 23 | 49 | 110 | 9 | 7.85 | 9 |
| Open Source Interest | 141 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 37 | 9 | 8.01 | 10 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 227 | 12 | 5.29% |
| Considering new Interface | 227 | 14 | 6.17% |
| System Installed on time? | 227 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 194101 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 85 |
| Academic | 64 |
| School | 8 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 12 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 5 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2021 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 212 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 56 | 89 | 57 | 8 | 7.85 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 212 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 62 | 82 | 48 | 8 | 7.66 | 8 | ||
| Print Functionality | 210 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 28 | 89 | 80 | 8 | 8.06 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 202 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 25 | 30 | 46 | 41 | 31 | 7 | 6.39 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 208 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 28 | 75 | 87 | 9 | 7.99 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 205 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 43 | 56 | 89 | 9 | 7.95 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 205 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 32 | 62 | 92 | 9 | 7.88 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 119 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 36 | 9 | 8.41 | 10 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 217 | 7 | 3.23% |
| Considering new Interface | 217 | 17 | 7.83% |
| System Installed on time? | 217 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 251749 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 88 |
| Academic | 45 |
| School | 3 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 15 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 12 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 6 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 5 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2020 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 302 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 14 | 58 | 120 | 97 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 303 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 19 | 66 | 114 | 86 | 8 | 7.69 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 302 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 54 | 106 | 124 | 9 | 8.01 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 285 | 13 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 13 | 30 | 33 | 61 | 64 | 54 | 8 | 6.53 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 288 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 47 | 82 | 126 | 9 | 7.83 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 296 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 34 | 87 | 140 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 289 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 9 | 40 | 68 | 137 | 9 | 7.61 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 181 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 4 | 9 | 12 | 44 | 9 | 7.73 | 10 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 315 | 16 | 5.08% |
| Considering new Interface | 315 | 16 | 5.08% |
| System Installed on time? | 315 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 510756 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 121 |
| Academic | 100 |
| School | 10 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 27 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 11 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 7 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
The following table presents the 2019 results according to the type and size of the library.
| 2019 Koha Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koha | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 279 | 7.65 | 92 | 7.32 | 17 | 7.88 | 3 | 74 | 8.03 | 9 | 7.67 | 0 | 9 | 7.78 | 7 | 8.29 | ||
| ILSFunctionality | 278 | 7.47 | 91 | 7.25 | 17 | 7.71 | 3 | 74 | 7.77 | 9 | 7.22 | 0 | 9 | 8.11 | 7 | 7.86 | ||
| PrintFunctionality | 274 | 8.01 | 90 | 7.71 | 17 | 8.12 | 3 | 73 | 8.25 | 8 | 7.38 | 0 | 9 | 8.22 | 7 | 8.57 | ||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 267 | 6.16 | 89 | 5.96 | 16 | 5.38 | 2 | 70 | 6.37 | 9 | 6.44 | 0 | 9 | 7.56 | 7 | 6.29 | ||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 268 | 7.67 | 88 | 7.25 | 17 | 7.24 | 2 | 71 | 8.20 | 9 | 8.11 | 0 | 9 | 7.67 | 7 | 8.57 | ||
| CompanyLoyalty | 257 | 7.14 | 83 | 6.52 | 13 | 6.77 | 2 | 71 | 7.62 | 9 | 8.56 | 0 | 9 | 8.33 | 6 | 8.67 | ||
| 2019 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 279 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 15 | 62 | 92 | 89 | 8 | 7.65 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 278 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 23 | 72 | 95 | 65 | 8 | 7.47 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 274 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 37 | 101 | 113 | 9 | 8.01 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 267 | 14 | 2 | 9 | 8 | 22 | 34 | 36 | 49 | 54 | 39 | 8 | 6.16 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 271 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 29 | 81 | 121 | 9 | 7.77 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 268 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 13 | 36 | 72 | 117 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 257 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 22 | 64 | 21 | 28 | 43 | 64 | 5 | 6.50 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 257 | 17 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 25 | 52 | 116 | 9 | 7.14 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 249 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 158 | 9 | 7.38 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 280 | 17 | 6.07% |
| Considering new Interface | 280 | 48 | 17.14% |
| System Installed on time? | 280 | 248 | 88.57% |
| Average Collection size: | 6225175 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 84 |
| Academic | 116 |
| School | 9 |
| Consortium | 7 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 15 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 4 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2018 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 254 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 13 | 55 | 79 | 86 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 253 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 70 | 83 | 59 | 8 | 7.42 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 247 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 16 | 39 | 84 | 92 | 9 | 7.80 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 234 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 14 | 36 | 32 | 63 | 36 | 32 | 7 | 6.30 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 245 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 15 | 33 | 62 | 112 | 9 | 7.78 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 244 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 16 | 31 | 66 | 108 | 9 | 7.73 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 237 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 47 | 17 | 36 | 45 | 59 | 9 | 6.68 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 247 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 11 | 25 | 58 | 117 | 9 | 7.49 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 219 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 16 | 167 | 9 | 7.92 | 9 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 255 | 18 | 7.06% |
| Considering new Interface | 255 | 19 | 7.45% |
| System Installed on time? | 255 | 232 | 90.98% |
| Average Collection size: | 107262 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 89 |
| Academic | 78 |
| School | 8 |
| Consortium | 4 |
| Special | 24 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 11 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2017 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 360 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 11 | 13 | 32 | 84 | 114 | 98 | 8 | 7.49 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 358 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 16 | 45 | 86 | 116 | 73 | 8 | 7.27 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 356 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 9 | 22 | 65 | 131 | 106 | 8 | 7.58 | 8 |
| Electronic Functionality | 342 | 12 | 5 | 15 | 14 | 19 | 42 | 58 | 59 | 75 | 43 | 8 | 6.17 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 345 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 29 | 53 | 95 | 129 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 345 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 29 | 53 | 79 | 137 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 329 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 26 | 84 | 34 | 34 | 62 | 76 | 5 | 6.61 | 7 | |
| Company Loyalty | 339 | 19 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 12 | 28 | 20 | 49 | 61 | 133 | 9 | 6.99 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 325 | 22 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 10 | 8 | 17 | 24 | 213 | 9 | 7.46 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 364 | 32 | 8.79% |
| Considering new Interface | 364 | 45 | 12.36% |
| System Installed on time? | 364 | 324 | 89.01% |
| Average Collection size: | 118002 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 124 |
| Academic | 105 |
| School | 21 |
| Consortium | 9 |
| Special | 31 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 5 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2016 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 269 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 17 | 19 | 56 | 92 | 76 | 8 | 7.57 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 269 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 23 | 68 | 101 | 49 | 8 | 7.35 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 268 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 18 | 47 | 104 | 77 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 260 | 13 | 11 | 13 | 18 | 34 | 31 | 55 | 60 | 25 | 8 | 6.07 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 262 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 27 | 34 | 80 | 88 | 9 | 7.47 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 256 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20 | 22 | 35 | 75 | 84 | 9 | 7.36 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 245 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 65 | 26 | 35 | 42 | 54 | 5 | 6.60 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 249 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 19 | 14 | 32 | 53 | 97 | 9 | 7.07 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 238 | 18 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 3 | 7 | 23 | 159 | 9 | 7.53 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 275 | 17 | 6.18% |
| Considering new Interface | 275 | 35 | 12.73% |
| System Installed on time? | 275 | 233 | 84.73% |
| Average Collection size: | 134577 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 105 |
| Academic | 86 |
| School | 12 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 24 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2015 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 270 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 20 | 59 | 85 | 78 | 8 | 7.43 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 271 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 27 | 61 | 104 | 52 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 268 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 40 | 102 | 91 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 |
| Electronic Functionality | 256 | 17 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 14 | 26 | 36 | 54 | 55 | 36 | 8 | 6.19 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 260 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 22 | 35 | 71 | 96 | 9 | 7.41 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 258 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 16 | 21 | 31 | 69 | 97 | 9 | 7.37 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 249 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 63 | 21 | 17 | 40 | 80 | 9 | 6.71 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 251 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 18 | 19 | 15 | 53 | 104 | 9 | 6.92 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 228 | 19 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 17 | 158 | 9 | 7.46 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 277 | 10 | 3.61% |
| Considering new Interface | 277 | 33 | 11.91% |
| System Installed on time? | 277 | 248 | 89.53% |
| Average Collection size: | 145133 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 120 |
| Academic | 64 |
| School | 13 |
| Consortium | 10 |
| Special | 23 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 1 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2014 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 230 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 23 | 64 | 73 | 48 | 8 | 7.36 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 230 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 33 | 68 | 62 | 43 | 7 | 7.17 | 7 | |
| Print Functionality | 222 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 17 | 39 | 89 | 59 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 222 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 18 | 30 | 27 | 53 | 47 | 22 | 7 | 6.14 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 225 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 17 | 41 | 61 | 79 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 221 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 22 | 32 | 57 | 78 | 9 | 7.38 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 213 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 52 | 18 | 29 | 33 | 52 | 5 | 6.53 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 209 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 18 | 16 | 23 | 45 | 79 | 9 | 7.07 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 196 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 21 | 137 | 9 | 7.79 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 237 | 16 | 6.75% |
| Considering new Interface | 237 | 33 | 13.92% |
| System Installed on time? | 237 | 202 | 85.23% |
| Average Collection size: | 173934 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 99 |
| Academic | 56 |
| School | 13 |
| Consortium | 8 |
| Special | 20 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 1 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2013 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 194 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 17 | 42 | 58 | 59 | 9 | 7.47 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 194 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 17 | 53 | 61 | 41 | 8 | 7.25 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 193 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 25 | 74 | 63 | 8 | 7.63 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 183 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 37 | 35 | 27 | 7 | 6.15 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 186 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 26 | 46 | 79 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 185 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 15 | 28 | 39 | 78 | 9 | 7.41 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 178 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 37 | 21 | 20 | 32 | 50 | 9 | 6.69 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 186 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 8 | 21 | 29 | 89 | 9 | 7.12 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 168 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 130 | 9 | 7.83 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 199 | 11 | 5.53% |
| Considering new Interface | 199 | 29 | 14.57% |
| System Installed on time? | 199 | 168 | 84.42% |
| Average Collection size: | 547867 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 75 |
| Academic | 52 |
| School | 13 |
| Consortium | 5 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 8 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2012 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 152 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 35 | 50 | 41 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 152 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 39 | 46 | 34 | 8 | 7.18 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 149 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 24 | 36 | 59 | 9 | 7.39 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 147 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 27 | 39 | 51 | 9 | 7.19 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 140 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 26 | 14 | 19 | 25 | 36 | 9 | 6.58 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 143 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 17 | 24 | 64 | 9 | 7.00 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 139 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 105 | 9 | 7.93 | 9 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 157 | 7 | 4.46% |
| Considering new Interface | 157 | 11 | 7.01% |
| System Installed on time? | 157 | 129 | 82.17% |
| Average Collection size: | 173045 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 69 |
| Academic | 38 |
| School | 7 |
| Consortium | 3 |
| Special | 15 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2011 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 166 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 34 | 53 | 39 | 8 | 7.06 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 163 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 17 | 53 | 42 | 27 | 7 | 6.90 | 7 |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 159 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 19 | 42 | 54 | 9 | 6.90 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 159 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 14 | 20 | 36 | 54 | 9 | 6.79 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 153 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 35 | 18 | 14 | 25 | 39 | 9 | 6.44 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 158 | 17 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 23 | 70 | 9 | 6.65 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 136 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 95 | 9 | 7.68 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 170 | 11 | 6.47% |
| Considering new Interface | 170 | 21 | 12.35% |
| System Installed on time? | 170 | 139 | 81.76% |
| Average Collection size: | 125739 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 73 |
| Academic | 43 |
| School | 11 |
| Consortium | 3 |
| Special | 14 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 4 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2010 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 127 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 36 | 28 | 42 | 9 | 7.54 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 120 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 6 | 14 | 27 | 47 | 9 | 7.31 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 122 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 29 | 44 | 9 | 7.18 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 123 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 9 | 14 | 18 | 50 | 9 | 7.07 | 8 |
| Company Loyalty | 123 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 62 | 9 | 7.15 | 9 | |
| Open Source Interest | 118 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 110 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 | |||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 131 | 8 | 6.11% |
| Considering new Interface | 131 | 15 | 11.45% |
| System Installed on time? | 131 | 109 | 83.21% |
| Average Collection size: | 112613 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 56 |
| Academic | 30 |
| School | 9 |
| Consortium | 5 |
| Special | 8 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2009 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 86 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 15 | 22 | 21 | 11 | 7 | 6.63 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 82 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 10 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 6.32 | 7 |
| Support Satisfaction | 83 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 14 | 20 | 14 | 8 | 6.20 | 7 |
| Support Improvement | 75 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 17 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 15 | 5 | 5.53 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 80 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 9 | 15 | 22 | 9 | 5.96 | 7 | |
| Open Source Interest | 76 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 66 | 9 | 8.37 | 9 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 87 | 8 | 9.20% |
| Considering new Interface | 87 | 6 | 6.90% |
| System Installed on time? | 87 | 65 | 74.71% |
| 2008 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 33 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 6.33 | 7 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 33 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6.39 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 33 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6.03 | 6 |
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 33 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 9 | 6.00 | 7 | |
| Open Source Interest | 28 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 9 | 8.29 | 9 | |||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 33 | 7 | 21.21% |
| Considering new Interface | 33 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 33 | 25 | 75.76% |
| 2007 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 19 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 7.21 | 7 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 21 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 7.48 | 7 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 22 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 6.82 | 7 | |||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 21 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 6.71 | 8 | |||
| Open Source Interest | 24 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 9 | 8.67 | 9 | ||||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 27 | 3 | 11.11% |
| Considering new Interface | 27 | 3 | 11.11% |
| System Installed on time? | 27 | 0 | 0.00% |
2022 : gen: 7.84 company 7.97 loyalty 7.85 support 7.98
2021 : gen: 7.85 company 7.99 loyalty 7.88 support 7.95
2020 : gen: 7.83 company 7.83 loyalty 7.61 support 7.89
2019 : gen: 7.65 company 7.77 loyalty 7.14 support 7.67
2018 : gen: 7.67 company 7.78 loyalty 7.49 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
since Koha is a free open source software the answers to questions about the "ILS-vendor" refer to the support service provider - just like suggested in the footnote (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Using in house tech support many of these questions are not applicable (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Nos gustaría que se desarrollara más el sistema en cuanto a la protección de datos: que el usuario pudiera aceptar si quiere que se usen sus datos para envío de información. Ahora mismo sólo permite aceptar, o no, el contrato con la biblioteca. Porque koha gestiona la protección de datos para ella misma, es decir si el cliente quiere o no aceptar ser usuario de Koha. Por la Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales y al Reglamento (UE) 2016/679 General de Protección de Datos (RGPD) es necesario pedir a todos los usuarios que acepten nuestra política de tratamientos de datos, en caso contrario, no podemos recoger sus datos en koha y menos usarlos para enviarles información. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
la biblioteca tiene el sistema integrado koha, el soporte técnico lo brinda la misma área de informática de la institución, no una empresa externa. el koha actualmente aparte de ingresar los recursos tradicionales hemos digitalizado afiches y mapas de la institución y lo hemos incluido dentro del catálogo (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We moved to hosted serving from Catalyst but still using Koha. The transfer went very smoothly and everything is working very well. Very grateful I didn't have to learn new stuff. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library is currently uses an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Still new with KOHA, so far its OK... (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
El sistema con que cuenta la biblioteca no fue implementado por una empresa, se contrató personal de sistemas para llevar a cabo todo lo relacionado con los sistemas y procesos de automatización de la biblioteca. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We currently use two open source systems in our library. We use VuFind as OPAC and discovery interface and KOHA as open source ILS. We implemented and migrated them ourselves. We do not currently have support services for these systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am very pleased with Bywater Solutions Koha, they have the best customer service, continual forward thinking upgrades, very well priced, they are the best company you could ever want to work with. If you have an unusual request they will find the answer and take care of everything, so I feel they go above and beyond! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ILS is Koha, and was implemented by Bywater Solutions who manage and host our system. We are very pleased with their services and support (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We will be considering participation in FOLIO when it (or portions of it) goes public (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with Koha and ByWater support. Previously it was a challenge just get a response from our ILS vendor. With ByWater, we reclassified the collection and tagged all volumes with RFID chips. We further were able to customize our ILS, as well as to support development benefiting our library and the entire Koha community. With our previous ILS vendor we did not even have access to our own data. With Koha & ByWater we have full control, including with the development of features required for our specialized readership. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Since we are remodeling the library, we did a major inventory and weeding over the past two years. Bywater, via the State Library, were very flexible about designing the inventory reports we needed. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater has been exceptional. Their customer service is beyond top notch. The Koha ILS has been more than adequate for what we need. I would recommend taking a hard look at them before you renew with your current vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very happy with Koha, managed by ByWater Solutions. But there is an institution-wide push to consolidate services among all departments. Since our main campus library is much larger, we have been asked to migrate to their ILS. This is not 100% decided yet but the likelihood is strong that it will happen in 2020. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are pleased with ByWater Solutions supported Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have implemented an open source ILS so didn't answer the above. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is not intended to manage our electronic resources, hence the lower score for that. We will need to get a discovery layer if we stay with Koha. Budget is the only thing holding us back on that. ByWater Solutions has done a good job of supporting Koha since they did our migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I like that Koha is open source and that our upgrade schedule means we get a slew of bugfixes each year. But overall, I am not enamored of our position. It is quite dated and it shows. Who is writing Perl apps these days? Koha is only just now migrating to Elasticsearch as the search engine, five years too late. The UI looks awful relative to modern websites. There are terrible architectural decisions (e.g. instead of a "deleted" bit for database records, copying them into a separate "deleted_{table name}" table) for which we are still paying the price. We cannot index the catalog in Google because bot crawlers make it too slow. That is not a problem for well-designed search systems. I like ByWater's staff and their organizational vision a lot. But we still have support tickets that languish too long when they should be resolved within a day. All this to say, Koha is the best choice for us right now, it's just an awful choice. It's like MARC records. The fact that MARC records are still used should be hugely embarrassing to our profession. It is unacceptable. But we seem unable, for whatever reasons, to make substantive technological progress in some areas. There are multiple greenfield digital repositories that look great, promising. Library catalogs, not so much. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Koha continues to evolve via the wisdom of the crowd. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been using Koha since 2008 and have absolutely no desire to change. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very happy with our open source Koha system, the [...] consortium, Bywater, and the assistance we receive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Migrating to Koha has greatly reduced our annual maintenance costs. The Koha community is very open-minded and collaborative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We currently use Koha, an open source ILS and are very pleased with both it and our vendor, ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The migration went well, overall. ByWater is very responsive as a support vendor and we're about to do our first upgrade. So far, I've liked their process for information dissemination about that. The individual people working there are wonderful. The trainers are all fantastic and I've really liked working with them. The data folks are top-notch and we've been really impressed with all the ByWater folks. The migration was not totally seamless - close to the wire, communication got a little dodgy. I think some of it was us learning their culture and some of it was perhaps a difference in expectations. I have some small lingering concerns about the company from those migration bumps. Our project manager was laid off in the middle of our migration, which contributed to the sudden drop off in communication and it seems like they're expanding in new ways. Several months into working with ByWater, I don't think expansion is a problem, but in the midst of a migration when I wasn't sure if we were on track for our go live date, I was much more worried. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I took over for the previous librarian in March 2019, and am still getting up to speed on the capabilities of our ILS, Koha. I am not completely clear on how Koha can support access to digital resources; that's something I will be looking into in the new year. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very happy to have made the switch from III Millennium to Koha hosted by ByWater. It allows us to use a more modern system with robust customization and support the growth of open source in the library community, but without requiring us to staff a full programming department. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall we are very happy with Bywater Solutions. There have been a few tickets that we had to really hound them to get fixed this year because we weren't getting any updates or fixes and that is unusual compared to other years when we have completed this survey. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just completed our first year working with ByWater Solutions, and we have had nothing but a great experience. Our implementation went incredibly smooth, and as a result of Koha our physical circulation is up 144.77% year over year, and .8% versus the last decade. Our print book circulation is up over 60% year over year as well. These improvements have been due to Koha and our ability to integrate an easy to navigate search box into our new website, so students can actually find books! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have only been employed as the Head Librarian for less than 6 months. I can't speak to what the decision process had been prior to my employ. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
KOHA is open source. We are extremely happy with KOHA and their customer support is excellent. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Question #4 is not applicable. We do not use Koha ILS to manage electronic resources because we use Ebsco's EDS. However, I have confidence the Koha product would work. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The library currently has an open source ILS system, which was migrated to last year. It has a number of shortcomings that were not realized during the bidding and testing phase. Some of those have been addressed or overcome since implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
ByWater Solutions has provided us with outstanding customer service from migration through every major and minor change we’ve made or even considered. I recommend them without reservation. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OUR COLLECTION SIZE IS NOW 33595 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use Koha administered/supported by ByWater Solutions and we could not be happier. We migrated from TLC in summer 2017. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
ByWater Solutions' support and library of educational resources is the primary reason behind our successful transition to Koha and successful on-going implementation. The timeliness of their response to support tickets is exponentially faster than previous support we were used to and has been a breath of fresh air as well as a boost to our confidence in knowing that what we are putting forward has a dedicated team behind it. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our support team is friendly, helpful and always follows through. It makes my life easier. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater continues to be a wonderful company to work with!! They have provided us with the best customer service out of all the vendors we partner with. They take the intimidation factor out of open source library management tools. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our ebooks are not linked in our OPAC due to how students authenticate for access through LMS. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very pleased with the frequency of updates and information received about them from our library system. Problems that we report are actually worked on and improved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
In the past we wrote down "approx 6400 items in the collection" but this was an error. We have approx 6400 biblio records and approx 12500 items. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Total number of items includes electronic and print resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have only been here 6 months so don't know too much about anything. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I love our ILS. My biggest issue is the reporting capabilities which require advanced knowledge of SQL. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
ILS support staff are always timely implementing any changes with cataloguing metadata (Library type: Church; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our biggest problem with electronic resource integration right now is duplicate matching; Koha doesn't seem to have good options for granular duplicate matching by ISBN. It's all or nothing; can't account for cancelled/invalid ISBNs (020$z), which is problematic for ebook matching. Our support vendor hasn't been able to figure out a workaround yet. I really appreciate the responsiveness of open source software, and Koha in particular, to community bug reports and enhancement requests. I've already seen several things I've reported be fixed through community reporting. It is so different from our experience with a proprietary vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
A discovery interface would be helpful, but it is not under serious consideration at this time. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
As a very new solo librarian with no training from the previous librarian a lot of these questions are simply unknown or not applicable to me. I'm sorry not to be of more help. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Estamos terminando la etapa de normalización del archivo de autoridades en el Koha. Luego vamos a implementar el Repositorio para la documentación institucional en DSpace con la misma empresa Theke Solutions que creo que trabaja con ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Switching to open source was the best decision in our recorded automation history. Koha is a fantastic product that reduced our IT cost by 90% (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't use any company(ILS vendor), just our IT department support us. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We self-installed our system and rely on community support. We have had no issues that required support in the last year. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] Library self-host, so several of the questions I couldn't answer. Koha also only contains print material, other systems handle the electronic resources. So that questions wasn't answered either. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
As stated in previous years, this survey is somewhat difficult to answer for us at [...] Library, since we only use Koha to manage physical materials. Everything else is managed by other systems, under our [...] Findit setup. I've answered 0 for electronic materials again this year since we do not use Koha for this. The number of our collection is the number of printed items. Not including electronic books and articles. ** When answering about vendor, we have a support contract with BibLibre, which we are happy with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Kindly note our ILS (Koha) was initially installed by an external vendor company and henceforth has been supported by an in-house system administrator. All local development is shared with the Koha community. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We implemented migration from Clavius (LANius) to Koha basically on our own. We are small municipal Library with 10 employees in total (1 IT), but we are helping with spreading this SW (helping with transition to others, translating to Czech, developing) of the Koha ILS itself. Now there is in Czech Republic team of 5-6 evangelists which introduced Koha into other municipal libraries with 250+ implementations of Koha in total (from circa 6500 libraries in Czech Republic). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Después de tres años en producción, confirmamos que Koha cubre las necesidades de una biblioteca universitaria. Tiene gran potencialidad y permite altos niveles de integración con otros sistemas. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have not used Koha's customer support as our school system won't pay for it. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been using Koha for almost 5 years and we have not encountered any problem. It is the best open-source ILS for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Suite à l'installation de Koha à la [...] , nous avons choisi de nous passer de prestataires. Nous travaillons avec un ingénieur développeur et une administratrice fonctionnelle dans l'équipe Koha à la [...]. Nous complétons avec des prestations externes ponctuelles de développement auprès de prestataires divers. Nous travaillons à faire entrer des fonctionnalités propres à notre structure et potentiellement utiles pour tous dans la branche communautaire de KOHA. Nous avons implémenté EDS Discovery service dans Koha via l'API d'EDS pour Koha. Merci et bonne journée, (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We did not use any vendor for our implementation. We have local expertise and did everything on our own. We also actively contribute to Koha through the mailing list (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We did not use a company to migrate. We migrated in-house and support Koha ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha is having a positive momentum in Sweden today. Especially among public libraries where new consortia and joint ventures building on common Koha catalogne is emerging. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't have as yet a support contract. All issues having occurred to date were solved consulting the Koha manual or the community (mailing lists). Both are very helpful. We definitely need a solution for our growing digital holdings (mostly e-books). That's why VuFind is under consideration -- meaning at this point, though, that is really only under consideration, no evaluation has taken place yet. This is an OPL and I'm yet busy with the migration from the old and awful ILS (which I'm very happy to have got rid of). I'd like to mention and stress a point concerning Koha. I've worked with some ILS/discovery systems (most of all Aleph and Alma) that are shockingly expensive and inflexible and I can say that Koha - being open source and free - is none the worse for that. Au contraire: Koha is one of the best ILS available and I'm always amazed that our public university libraries spend so much tax money with systems that are by no means better than Koha. Wishing you all the best for this year's survey! (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have migrated from Kobli to KOHA (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have migrate the ILS from Virtua to KOHA since 2017, Currently we are using Koha version 16.05 (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Though we don't have any vendor lock as Koha is a FOSS, however, sometimes it is considered as incomplete as it is not possible to implement all the modules as there are some functionalities that differ or vary to the local context. Moreover, we need to engage in R&D by ourselves for the betterment of the functional and operational processes. When we need any help, we communicate with the Koha technical forum or what other libraries has done. Thank you. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are managing KOHA ILS with our own resources and set of expertise. However, we are considering now to get the support through an outsource organization. We have budgeted the cost and will decide upon its approval status. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha ILS is fully implemented by internal library staff. Migration from other library ILS solutions, training support etc are fully managed by the library staff of University of Calicut. We have implemented Vufind discovery system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
There is no problem of using ILS Koha. We ate very satisfied. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our Library has implemented Koha on our own without any help from other companies. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are satisfied with the current ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Actualmente KOHA esta suscrito no con Infoestratégica sino con etechsolutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
KOHA is an open source system hosted by our vendor. We would hesitate to get an open source system again. The look and feel of KOHA can give an impression of a lack of central design. Attempting to get changes implemented involves the KOHA community and appears to be a more complicated process than getting a change on to the list of a commercial vendor. The community who develop KOHA are naturally tech oriented and library staff who are not tech specialists can find it difficult to interface and communicate with them. The reporting function requires a working knowledge of SQL and generating reports is not straightforward. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have already implemented an open source LMS. It is Koha. I think it is less likely that we'd consider an Open Source LMS in the future because there has been some disappointment with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Koha-Kobli is an open-source project that it was already finished. Librarian staff carry out the maintenance of the SIGB. None external company works for the library in the maintenance. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We fairly much has to do what the larger [...] campus does, although if we can figure it out, we would like to reconnect with the [..] local consortium, which also uses KOHA, but the vendor is BywaterSolutions, which seems more robust. HOWEVER! it is possible the features we currently use are chosen by the tech services person in [...] . More research would be needed. :) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not load records for subscription ebooks or videos into our catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
n/a (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am new to this job so this system, my only issue is when I run reports I get error messages quite often. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Some questions suppose a service provider, something we do not use. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha's Prosentient is a very good low cost solution to implement a basic library management system (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are in a process of starting our work with libraries owned by government. These libraries have zero automation and we are approached by the government of Sindh and Punjab to provide consultation and solution with regards to automation and digitisation of the public libraries. We are actually looking for a solution which is easy to implement and is open source . Should be with affordable as well as it is for public libraires. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
PTFS were very professional, responsive and had a very good understanding of the technology underlying the product. They liaised well with our IT department during the implementation. When we have had issues with other products that plug into Koha they have been very responsive investigating the issue and providing the right kind of data for the other supplier to resolve the issue. They worked closely with us and third parties. Support for Koha has only been in place for 1 year so it has neither improved nor got worse. We chose Explorit because it was vendor neutral as we had had problems with our discovery product in the past with information sources from another supplier not being displayed correctly. We need to do some work removing some electronic sources which overwhelm the search results to improve the search results and make it easier for users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
|
|
|