The following table presents the 2020 results according to the type and size of the library.
| 2020 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 | 302 | 7.83 | 65 | 7.71 | 13 | 7.54 | 4 | 105 | 7.88 | 13 | 7.62 | 0 | 9 | 8.11 | 6 | 8.17 | ||
| ILSFunctionality | 303 | 7.69 | 65 | 7.37 | 13 | 7.46 | 4 | 105 | 7.83 | 13 | 7.23 | 0 | 9 | 8.11 | 6 | 7.50 | ||
| PrintFunctionality | 302 | 8.01 | 65 | 7.97 | 12 | 7.75 | 4 | 104 | 7.89 | 13 | 7.77 | 0 | 9 | 8.67 | 6 | 8.67 | ||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 285 | 6.53 | 63 | 6.48 | 13 | 5.23 | 3 | 94 | 6.64 | 12 | 6.92 | 0 | 9 | 7.33 | 6 | 7.33 | ||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 296 | 7.89 | 64 | 7.36 | 11 | 6.82 | 4 | 104 | 8.21 | 13 | 8.08 | 0 | 9 | 8.56 | 6 | 8.00 | ||
| CompanyLoyalty | 289 | 7.61 | 60 | 7.22 | 13 | 6.46 | 4 | 103 | 7.91 | 12 | 8.08 | 0 | 8 | 7.50 | 6 | 8.83 | ||
| 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 |
| 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% |
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
Pleased with the vendor's ability to continue providing customer support despite the pandemic. ILS continues to improve and better meet our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
At present the KOHA software fulfilling all requirement of our library (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Already into the Open source! If we will create a new solution, we will give an open acces licence. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Nuestra biblioteca no utiliza aún un SIGB, sino que trabajamos con bases de datos ISIS y programas desarrollados ad-hoc para el funcionamiento de cada servicio. Estamos en proceso de migración a Koha, pero mientras tanto implementamos Vufind con excelentes resultados durante 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have an open source ils and a support contract with a local company with expertise on Koha. 2020 was a very strange year. It is the first year with Koha but half of the year the library was closed to the public, the last two months almost closed (we deliver books at the entrance of the library). We haven't one year work, experience or problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
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: 7)
Wegen der Fragen zum Anbieter des IBS: Wir nutzen Koha direkt, ohne Anbieter dazwischen, deshalb konnte ich die Frage "Würde die Bibliothek wieder mit diesem Anbieter zusammenarbeiten, wenn sie zukünftig auf ein neues System migrieren würde?" nur mit 0 (= unwahrscheinlich) beantworten. Bei der Frage zur Zufriedenheit mit dem Kundenservice habe ich mich auf die allgemeine Mailingliste bezogen. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The customer service provide by ByWater is exceptional. If your ILS contract comes up for renewal, you absolutely should give them a call. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are already an open source library using open source platforms for ILS, library guides, digital archive, and institutional records repository. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As no vendor is perfect, I would not consider ByWater Solutions to be completely flawless. However, they have been a magnificent partner in working with our consortium on a variety of needs that range from support to future developments. I would recommend their services to any type or size of library. They can deliver at a competitive price point and the more people that contribute to Koha, the better it gets for everyone. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Bywater has provided superb customer service and tech know-how to retrieve records lost due to a technical glitch during our shut-down and removal to remote location. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We've been using Koha, with support from ByWater Solutions, since 2016. We are very pleased with the functionality and customization of Koha. We had significant budgetary savings by going with an open source ILS. Support from ByWater and other Koha libraries is awesome. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very pleased with Koha and the Aspen Discovery product (added this year). ByWater Solutions has been very easy to deal with and they are very responsive to our requests. Koha offers pretty basic support for electronic resources, but Aspen Discovery has provided us with a very easy to use and manage way to provide electronic resource access. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We already use two open source products: Koha and Libki. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
As with all growth issues, economic and technological, there are days that the sophisticated and complex capabilities of KOHA seem all too much for our small, high touch service model. That said, at least we are positioned for the next generation of users in our community and our human resources bridges any gaps that may occur when current seniors are introduced to our systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Bywater's customer service is stellar. The limits of the Koha ILS is where most of our problems occur. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We use Ebsco Discovery for 4th and 5th grade students in an elementary school. The interface works pretty well, and allows us to include all the links we need to other non-Ebsco sites as well on our landing page. We use it as a landing page for our one-on-one laptop program for these grades. While we are happy with Koha and very happy with Bywater, we still do not feel that Koha is as kid-friendly in its OPAC as we would want. There is a real need for kid-friendly OPAC interfaces: and some of it would be as simple as suppressing certain fields, and being able to highlight others by controlling the font size, etc. As a small stand-alone library, we don't have the funds to pay for or even contribute to the development of improvements in the interface. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
already open source (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Overall, customer service with Bywater is very good. It would be nice to see more digital resources implemented/integrated free of charge. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are happy with our ILS, Koha, and very happy with our vendor, ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We currently use Koha, which is an open source system. We are pleased with it as an integrated library system. We do not take advantage, however, of the opportunities for customization that open source offers, because we are a very small library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We already have an open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
We do not use the ILS for print or electronic management. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been very favorably impressed with ByWater Solutions' expertise, knowledge, and willingness to work with us to achieve our goals. Particularly when we shut down unexpectedly in March 2020 for COVID19, it was heartening to know that ByWater already had systems and processes - and documentation! - in place for us to use. Serving our public during lockdown was only possible because of ByWater's foresight and support. Our previous ILS certainly could never have coped with this unforeseen situation. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Product works well for our library and system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The Open Source Considerations question was about considering implementing an open source. We have migrated to KOHA a year ago, so that's why I answered "likely", not that we would do it again. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Bywater Solutions has been an excellent vendor, with friendly and helpful support and training individuals. Overall, I am very satisfied with their service. One small weakness of theirs is speed in responding to some tickets. Some tickets take several weeks to receive a response, particularly in the "Systems" queue. I suspect their Systems team is often overwhelmed with work and running behind. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha has been good. Our concerns are when patrons pay a fine, Koha adds more money which results in a tremendous over-credit and you can't remove it. Also, items that are being checked out sometimes are indicated to be due back on the same day; specifically this happens a lot with board books. Also, sometimes when there is a hold on an item, when you go to confirm and print it out, it goes to an 'internal server error' and then you have to go back to do the process twice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ByWater has been an excellent source of support for over 3 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] already uses an open source ILS, Koha. This is the response for the consortium. Individual member libraries will submit their own responses. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
One thing I would appreciate having back is the Browse key, it is just a personal preference as a cataloger, it is a key that is immensely helpful in making sure all titles, series, subscriptions are cataloged in the same consistent manner. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater's upgrade webinars and documentation are excellent and they were really wonderful in the chaos of this year. Looking back at the series of tickets I opened (beginning with "if we closed, how would this work?" and progressing through "this seems likely, so what if we..." ending with "Oh no, this is happening now and I'm just going to turn off a bunch of things, I hope nothing breaks, thanks!") I'm amazed at how calm and helpful they were knowing they were getting that from all of their customers with varying levels of technical acumen and panic. If I were to change anything about Koha, it would be to add more robust features to the acquisitions module. Templates for creating orders and the ability to receive items in groups instead of one at a time would save us considerable time. I follow the acq SIG in the Koha community but haven't been able to participate as much as I would like. It's lovely to have that outlet and resource though - the joys of Open Source! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with Koha overall, but we have a few concerns/difficulties. We offer a monthly Fine Forgiveness Day, and the system does not forgive fines for Lost/Long Overdue items easily. It is also difficult to record when a patron pays for or replaces a lost item. The accounting tab and item records do not "communicate" with each other well. However, overall we are pleased with the system, and the only way we were able to automate 6 years ago was because Bywater Solutions offered a discounted price through our state library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha is a robust library management system, but we do not currently use a discovery layer. Our online public access catalog searches take a noticeable amount of time (close to 5 seconds per search or screen) and feel slow. Patrons and staff would prefer a faster response and a better known title result display. Because most searches are keyword, the known title searches sometimes show the desired result several screens down the list. Also, our Overdrive ebooks are searched from the Overdrive site, but the results are not integrated with the list of print titles in the search results. This is supposed to be in development, but does not yet work. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have always been very pleased with the support services provided by ByWater Solutions and our Koha partners. They respond quickly and are willing to work with other vendors from whom we have products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater is quite responsive to our customer service tickets and emergency calls even on weekends. They have regularly helped me to create new statistical reports to find the odd data from time to time. Their regular improvements have improved functionality with the Aspen Discovery layer which has been amazing in aggregating records and formats to ease searching for patrons. The only complaint I have heard is about the functionality of the Libki print management which relies on Google. We have been hesitant to switch to it due to our neighboring libraries' concerns. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
ByWater is very attentative to our needs. They answer support requests quickly and are always open to our new ideas, and new coding challenges. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are considering Aspen for discovery, through Bywater (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] to implement an open source ILS. We would like to see a better system in terms of electronic resources. Koha is fine for print materials, although circulation would like to see better functionality in this area as well. Also, acquisitions needs to be bolstered in Koha. As a product, Koha would seem fine for smaller public libraries. With the amount of acquisitions and electronic resources we purchase, Koha leaves a lot to be desired. I should note this is separate from ByWater Solutions, Inc., which has excellent support and customer service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Technically KOHA (our ILS) is an open source ILS, we just have a vendor set it up and troubleshoot. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We do not share discovery systems or any other services, programs, or software except for the Koha ILS as serviced by ByWaterSolutions, Inc. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
See the note in the section pertaining to academic discovery. One area to consider asking about is if the Library uses an events management platform. Post pandemic for public libraries that is seemingly going to be a big area. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We use Koha (so already open source); the product is good, the customer service is excellent. There's things I wish they did/didn't do and some long-term bugs that need fixing, but I'm overall happy with the ILS and have no plans to change it. I'd recommend them if someone was asking. I have no clue how it works for e-resources because all of our e-resources have their own systems and we don't add e-records to Koha so I left that blank. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Bywater is always great to work with. They are responsive, friendly, and helpful every time I work with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I do not feel I am qualified to answer any of these questions. My system library would be more qualified to answer. I did my best. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We currently use an open source ILS, so I probably answered incorrectly above. Just guessing! thanks! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We currently use an open-source ILS. We are not an academic institution and so have no data on the effectiveness of discovery services for students/instructors (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are using Koha an open-source software and we are managing it through our [...] consortium with the help of a Koha specialist and the entire Koha community. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
As a new, solo librarian to a very small institution I inherited both of these systems and haven't yet had the time to fully evaluate them, nor the budget to truly consider substantive changes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Koha could use a better Reports section of their product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated to Koha this past year and it has made a huge difference for our small non-profit community library. We love the possibilities for customization. Like all library systems, it's not perfect, but it works great for us and there's an open source community always working to improve and enhance features. It can do just about anything that proprietary library systems can do, if not more. We were awarded a grant through the Equinox Open Source Initiative for migration, and the migration team at Equinox was fantastic. They helped us set up the system just how we wanted it, with our specific checkout policies, custom member profile fields, SQL reports for patron and circulation data, and an OPAC that has our library branding. They also held virtual training sessions for our staff so that we were as prepared as can be when the "go live" date came. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha is our current and previous ILS. (Library type: Special; collection size: small)
Almost all software we use is open source: Koha, DSpace, OJS, OCS, Drupal, simplesamlphp, etc. and we are promoting use of Open Source among Georgian libraries. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our Koha installation is self-supported, so in our case the "vendor" is the Koha community, koha-US in particular. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Due to institutional circumstances not related to COVID-19, our library is mostly inactive. We self-installed our open-source ILS and are not working with any support vendors. We are not using the ILS to manage electronic resources. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are currently running an open source ILS, Koha (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The question about the Academic Discovery Service ist strange. Its part of the open source solution (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The Koha community is very active, with ongoing series of video tutorials, discussion lists, and an very accessible bugfix program. It's one of the best community-supported software systems I've seen, on any topic. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We currently have a library system, but with a tiny print collection, we might be looking at a situation where we do no have an ILS at all. We have a unique collection and the return on investment (ROI) is so low - even for an open access system. (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
To clarify my response to Open source considerations. I have marked it as a 10 as I am completely happy with our current Open Source system, Koha. However, I am not interested in implementing any other open source ILS. I am a big supporter of Open Source and as Koha was developed here in the Horowhenua to meet our specific ILS needs before it went worldwide, we are not looking to change our system any time soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
we have been using the open source system koha for almost 10 years and we are extremely satisfied. Implementation and ongoing operation are without external service providers, but with great support from the Koha community We ar (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Currently we are working with Koha ILS, and we are interesting in using an open source Discovery, like Vufind. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The only organization we used is the Koha community. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Not looking to make any changes currently but will always consider these as new products appear and current contracts end. Open source and cost-effectiveness are always primary considerations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Usamos un sistema de código abierto: Koha-Kobli (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
My main concern with the PTFS Liblime Koha implementation is that this version has diverted significantly from the common open source version. Sometimes this greatly affects compatibility and coding with connected products, but it also seems to remove this version from the world-wide contributions and developments of the regular open source product. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall the selection of a product boils down to finances. Adopting an open source ILS is always an option. However, even then hosting and accessing is at at cost. During these trying times, the desire is for more more access with less finances. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
La empresa que nos brinda el soporte es Theke Solutions y estamos conformes con ella. Estamos pensando migrar las publicaciones institucionales a un Repositorio abierto con DSpace. Nos gustaría tener una interfaz de descubrimiento que reúna la documentación de ambos sistemas + el acceso abierto tipo VuFind o FOLIO pero todo tiene un costo y en este momento no lo podemos solventar. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ya estamos usando un SIGB de código abierto, Koha, y en caso de migrar (que actualmente no lo contemplamos) usar un software de código abierto sería una premisa fundamental. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
|
|
|