Statistical Report for Koha -- Interleaf Technology
1 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2021 |
2020 Survey Results |
Product: Koha -- Interleaf Technology |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 9 |
1 | | | | | 1 | | | 7 | | 8 | 6.78 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 9 |
1 | | | | | | 1 | 1 | 6 | | 8 | 6.78 | 8 |
Print Functionality | 9 |
| | | | | 1 | | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 |
Electronic Functionality | 9 |
1 | | | | | | | 3 | 5 | | 8 | 6.78 | 8 |
Company Satisfaction | 4 |
| | | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6.75 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 9 |
| | | | 1 | | | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Loyalty | 9 |
1 | | | | | | | | 6 | 2 | 8 | 7.33 | 8 |
Open Source Interest | 8 |
2 | | | 5 | | | | | | 1 | 3 | 3.00 | 3 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 9 |
1 | 11.11% |
Considering new Interface | 9 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 9 |
0 | 0.00% |
Average Collection size: |
| 33376667 |
Type | Count |
Public | 0 |
Academic | 3 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 5 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 2 |
[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 | 1 |
Statistics according to type and size categories
The following table presents the 2019 results according to the type and size of the library.
2019 Koha -- Interleaf Technology Responses by Sector |
Koha -- Interleaf Technology | 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 | 8 | 2.88 |
7 | 3.00 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
ILSFunctionality | 8 | 3.63 |
7 | 3.86 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
PrintFunctionality | 8 | 5.00 |
7 | 5.14 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
ElectronicFunctionality | 8 | 3.25 |
7 | 3.14 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 8 | 4.25 |
7 | 3.71 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
CompanyLoyalty | 8 | 3.63 |
7 | 3.00 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
2019 Survey Results |
Product: Koha -- Interleaf Technology |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 8 |
1 | 1 | 3 | | 2 | | | | 1 | | 2 | 2.88 | 2 |
ILS Functionality | 8 |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | | | 2 | | | 2 | 3.63 | 3 |
Print Functionality | 8 |
| | 1 | | 3 | 2 | | 1 | | 1 | 4 | 5.00 | 5 |
Electronic Functionality | 8 |
1 | | 2 | 1 | 3 | | | 1 | | | 4 | 3.25 | 4 |
Company Satisfaction | 8 |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | 2 | | 8 | 4.25 | 5 |
Support Satisfaction | 8 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 2 | | 1 | 4.25 | 4 |
Support Improvement | 7 |
1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 0 | 3.71 | 4 |
Company Loyalty | 8 |
3 | | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 | 2 | | 0 | 3.63 | 4 |
Open Source Interest | 8 |
2 | 1 | 1 | | 3 | | | | | 1 | 4 | 3.00 | 4 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 8 |
3 | 37.50% |
Considering new Interface | 8 |
1 | 12.50% |
System Installed on time? | 8 |
3 | 37.50% |
Average Collection size: |
| 99000 |
Type | Count |
Public | 0 |
Academic | 8 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 5 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2018 Survey Results |
Product: Koha -- Interleaf Technology |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 11 |
1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 4.73 | 6 |
ILS Functionality | 11 |
1 | | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 3 | | 1 | 7 | 4.55 | 4 |
Print Functionality | 11 |
| | 1 | | 2 | 2 | | 4 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5.91 | 7 |
Electronic Functionality | 10 |
1 | 1 | 3 | | 1 | 1 | | 3 | | | 2 | 3.70 | 4 |
Company Satisfaction | 11 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5.09 | 6 |
Support Satisfaction | 11 |
| 1 | | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | | 1 | 3 | 5.00 | 5 |
Support Improvement | 11 |
1 | | | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 4 | 4.55 | 4 |
Company Loyalty | 11 |
4 | | | 1 | | | 3 | | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4.18 | 6 |
Open Source Interest | 10 |
4 | | | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4.50 | 6 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 11 |
3 | 27.27% |
Considering new Interface | 11 |
2 | 18.18% |
System Installed on time? | 11 |
10 | 90.91% |
Average Collection size: |
| 67849 |
Type | Count |
Public | 0 |
Academic | 8 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 1 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 7 |
[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 |
5 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2017 |
3 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2016 |
4 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2015 |
4 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2014 |
2 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2013 |
0 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2012 |
0 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2011 |
0 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2010 |
0 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2009 |
0 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2008 |
0 Responses for Koha -- Interleaf Technology in 2007 |
2020 : gen: 6.78 company 6.75 loyalty 7.33 support 7.67
2019 : gen: 2.88 company 4.25 loyalty 3.63 support 4.25
2018 : gen: 4.73 company 5.09 loyalty 4.18 support 5.00
Comments (survey2019)
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)