Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Koha

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2021 results according to the type and size of the library.

2021 Koha Responses by Sector
KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2127.85 347.5087.752728.03127.921367.50
ILSFunctionality2127.66 347.3587.252727.76127.921367.17
PrintFunctionality2108.06 347.7988.002708.16128.331368.00
ElectronicFunctionality2026.39 326.0686.002716.85116.271365.50
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2057.95 327.4488.132718.32128.171366.50
CompanyLoyalty2057.88 327.7588.252708.07127.671367.67



2021 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction212 1 2 2 5 56 89 57 87.858
ILS Functionality212 1 2 1 5 11 62 82 48 87.668
Print Functionality210 1 1 2 1 8 28 89 80 88.068
Electronic Functionality202 8 3 6 6 6 25 30 46 41 31 76.397
Company Satisfaction208 2 3 1 6 6 28 75 87 97.998
Support Satisfaction205 1 3 1 7 5 43 56 89 97.958
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty205 2 1 2 3 2 8 1 32 62 92 97.888
Open Source Interest119 9 1 2 1 2 3 8 36 98.4110

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS217 73.23%
Considering new Interface217 177.83%
System Installed on time?217 00.00%

Average Collection size: 251749

TypeCount
Public88
Academic45
School3
Consortium6
Special15

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00012
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0005
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2020 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction302 1 1 3 2 6 14 58 120 97 87.838
ILS Functionality303 1 1 2 4 10 19 66 114 86 87.698
Print Functionality302 1 3 1 2 4 7 54 106 124 98.018
Electronic Functionality285 13 5 6 6 13 30 33 61 64 54 86.537
Company Satisfaction288 2 1 4 3 5 9 9 47 82 126 97.838
Support Satisfaction296 3 1 4 3 8 6 10 34 87 140 97.898
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty289 11 1 6 4 3 10 9 40 68 137 97.618
Open Source Interest181 17 3 5 2 11 4 9 12 44 97.7310

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS315 165.08%
Considering new Interface315 165.08%
System Installed on time?315 00.00%

Average Collection size: 510756

TypeCount
Public121
Academic100
School10
Consortium6
Special27

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00011
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2019 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction279 1 2 5 5 8 15 62 92 89 87.658
ILS Functionality278 1 3 4 4 11 23 72 95 65 87.478
Print Functionality274 1 2 5 5 10 37 101 113 98.018
Electronic Functionality267 14 2 9 8 22 34 36 49 54 39 86.167
Company Satisfaction271 4 3 2 1 6 12 12 29 81 121 97.778
Support Satisfaction268 4 3 1 4 10 8 13 36 72 117 97.678
Support Improvement257 7 1 1 6 22 64 21 28 43 64 56.507
Company Loyalty257 17 1 9 1 12 15 9 25 52 116 97.148
Open Source Interest249 18 5 2 4 13 9 6 10 24 158 97.389

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS280 176.07%
Considering new Interface280 4817.14%
System Installed on time?280 24888.57%

Average Collection size: 6225175

TypeCount
Public84
Academic116
School9
Consortium7
Special17

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00015
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2018 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction254 1 2 2 2 4 10 13 55 79 86 97.678
ILS Functionality253 1 2 3 4 4 7 20 70 83 59 87.428
Print Functionality247 2 1 1 5 7 16 39 84 92 97.808
Electronic Functionality234 8 2 6 5 14 36 32 63 36 32 76.307
Company Satisfaction245 1 2 3 4 5 8 15 33 62 112 97.788
Support Satisfaction244 1 4 2 4 6 6 16 31 66 108 97.738
Support Improvement237 4 1 3 5 20 47 17 36 45 59 96.687
Company Loyalty247 13 4 3 2 14 11 25 58 117 97.498
Open Source Interest219 15 2 3 3 6 1 6 16 167 97.929

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS255 187.06%
Considering new Interface255 197.45%
System Installed on time?255 23290.98%

Average Collection size: 107262

TypeCount
Public89
Academic78
School8
Consortium4
Special24

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



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

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

Average Collection size: 118002

TypeCount
Public124
Academic105
School21
Consortium9
Special31

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction269 2 2 1 4 17 19 56 92 76 87.578
ILS Functionality269 1 4 3 3 17 23 68 101 49 87.358
Print Functionality268 4 3 2 3 10 18 47 104 77 87.608
Electronic Functionality260 13 11 13 18 34 31 55 60 25 86.077
Company Satisfaction262 2 2 3 3 7 16 27 34 80 88 97.478
Support Satisfaction256 2 3 3 5 7 20 22 35 75 84 97.368
Support Improvement245 2 2 3 3 13 65 26 35 42 54 56.607
Company Loyalty249 10 7 5 5 7 19 14 32 53 97 97.078
Open Source Interest238 18 2 4 2 7 13 3 7 23 159 97.539

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS275 176.18%
Considering new Interface275 3512.73%
System Installed on time?275 23384.73%

Average Collection size: 134577

TypeCount
Public105
Academic86
School12
Consortium2
Special24

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



2015 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction270 5 2 2 4 3 12 20 59 85 78 87.438
ILS Functionality271 3 1 2 6 7 8 27 61 104 52 87.318
Print Functionality268 3 5 5 4 3 7 8 40 102 91 87.608
Electronic Functionality256 17 5 4 9 14 26 36 54 55 36 86.197
Company Satisfaction260 5 3 2 6 7 13 22 35 71 96 97.418
Support Satisfaction258 5 2 5 7 5 16 21 31 69 97 97.378
Support Improvement249 7 1 2 5 13 63 21 17 40 80 96.717
Company Loyalty251 19 2 6 7 8 18 19 15 53 104 96.928
Open Source Interest228 19 5 3 3 8 6 3 6 17 158 97.469

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS277 103.61%
Considering new Interface277 3311.91%
System Installed on time?277 24889.53%

Average Collection size: 145133

TypeCount
Public120
Academic64
School13
Consortium10
Special23

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



2014 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction230 1 3 2 2 14 23 64 73 48 87.368
ILS Functionality230 1 5 2 4 12 33 68 62 43 77.177
Print Functionality222 1 3 2 2 10 17 39 89 59 87.608
Electronic Functionality222 8 6 6 5 18 30 27 53 47 22 76.147
Company Satisfaction225 1 6 2 5 13 17 41 61 79 97.528
Support Satisfaction221 1 3 4 4 7 13 22 32 57 78 97.388
Support Improvement213 2 3 3 5 16 52 18 29 33 52 56.537
Company Loyalty209 8 4 2 4 10 18 16 23 45 79 97.078
Open Source Interest196 10 2 3 4 4 7 2 6 21 137 97.799

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS237 166.75%
Considering new Interface237 3313.92%
System Installed on time?237 20285.23%

Average Collection size: 173934

TypeCount
Public99
Academic56
School13
Consortium8
Special20

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



2013 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction194 2 1 2 4 3 6 17 42 58 59 97.478
ILS Functionality194 2 1 4 2 4 9 17 53 61 41 87.258
Print Functionality193 1 1 7 5 7 10 25 74 63 87.638
Electronic Functionality183 9 8 5 4 8 19 31 37 35 27 76.157
Company Satisfaction186 3 4 4 2 2 9 11 26 46 79 97.528
Support Satisfaction185 2 5 7 1 1 9 15 28 39 78 97.418
Support Improvement178 5 4 2 3 4 37 21 20 32 50 96.697
Company Loyalty186 12 5 4 1 5 12 8 21 29 89 97.128
Open Source Interest168 8 4 1 3 2 7 6 4 3 130 97.839

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS199 115.53%
Considering new Interface199 2914.57%
System Installed on time?199 16884.42%

Average Collection size: 547867

TypeCount
Public75
Academic52
School13
Consortium5
Special17

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0008
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 3 2 3 4 3 11 35 50 41 87.388
ILS Functionality152 1 4 6 4 6 12 39 46 34 87.188
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction149 3 1 1 7 7 4 7 24 36 59 97.398
Support Satisfaction147 5 4 2 6 2 3 8 27 39 51 97.198
Support Improvement140 3 2 4 4 7 26 14 19 25 36 96.587
Company Loyalty143 11 3 2 3 4 8 7 17 24 64 97.008
Open Source Interest139 8 1 1 4 4 2 6 8 105 97.939

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS157 74.46%
Considering new Interface157 117.01%
System Installed on time?157 12982.17%

Average Collection size: 173045

TypeCount
Public69
Academic38
School7
Consortium3
Special15

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



2011 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction166 5 2 4 2 5 9 13 34 53 39 87.068
ILS Functionality163 3 2 4 4 4 7 17 53 42 27 76.907
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction159 7 3 8 5 3 12 6 19 42 54 96.908
Support Satisfaction159 6 6 8 7 1 7 14 20 36 54 96.798
Support Improvement153 4 1 5 5 7 35 18 14 25 39 96.447
Company Loyalty158 17 4 4 3 3 12 11 11 23 70 96.658
Open Source Interest136 9 1 1 3 3 5 2 8 9 95 97.689

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 116.47%
Considering new Interface170 2112.35%
System Installed on time?170 13981.76%

Average Collection size: 125739

TypeCount
Public73
Academic43
School11
Consortium3
Special14

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0004
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction127 1 3 2 4 11 36 28 42 97.548
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction120 2 2 3 4 15 6 14 27 47 97.318
Support Satisfaction122 3 1 1 5 4 9 13 13 29 44 97.188
Support Improvement123 4 1 1 2 5 19 9 14 18 50 97.078
Company Loyalty123 10 1 4 3 9 5 12 17 62 97.159
Open Source Interest118 1 1 1 1 1 3 110 98.749

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS131 86.11%
Considering new Interface131 1511.45%
System Installed on time?131 10983.21%

Average Collection size: 112613

TypeCount
Public56
Academic30
School9
Consortium5
Special8

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



2009 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction86 6 2 4 5 15 22 21 11 76.637
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction82 2 2 4 5 3 8 10 18 15 15 76.327
Support Satisfaction83 4 1 4 7 3 7 9 14 20 14 86.207
Support Improvement75 6 3 1 7 5 17 4 11 6 15 55.535
Company Loyalty80 13 2 2 1 12 4 9 15 22 95.967
Open Source Interest76 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 66 98.379

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS87 89.20%
Considering new Interface87 66.90%
System Installed on time?87 6574.71%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction33 3 2 2 7 6 8 5 86.337
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction33 2 1 3 2 1 2 8 7 7 76.397
Support Satisfaction33 2 1 1 1 2 4 6 5 5 6 66.036
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty33 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 5 11 96.007
Open Source Interest28 1 2 1 1 23 98.299

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS33 721.21%
Considering new Interface33 00.00%
System Installed on time?33 2575.76%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Koha Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction19 1 1 3 5 6 3 87.217
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 1 2 1 7 2 8 97.487
Support Satisfaction22 2 1 2 3 5 2 7 96.827
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty21 1 1 4 1 1 5 8 96.718
Open Source Interest24 1 1 1 21 98.679

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS27 311.11%
Considering new Interface27 311.11%
System Installed on time?27 00.00%




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

Comments (survey2021)

We moved from Sierra to Koha this year. Koha is much cheaper and easier to use. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use Koha. Answers related to vendor etc is about server hosting and Koha support from an independent consultant company. (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha is used only to share paper copy documents. The Record of paper copy document is created into Dspace (Dpsace is the only Catalog we publicize), to inform users that the document exists. But we do not share or give access to Koha. Koha is use only for the internal services (to share an exemplar to a user (considering the category of user) and in the respect of the Lending Policy, so with the Calendar settings related to the category of user). *** Thanks to offer us to participate in your important work for us, the workers in libraries and Information Sciences! *** (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

E-aineistoa ei hallinnoida kirjastojärjestelmän kautta. Käytössä on jo avoimen lähdekoodin kirjastojärjestelmä (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha has been our system since 2018, due to severe technical problems with ALEPH500, in January 2018 our server expired (electrical and hardware problems). Our library has limited budget, so the best option was and still is open source. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We're actually transitioning from a slightly customized iteration of Koha with a small independent IT com company to Bywater Koha. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Soporte de Koha: Theke Solutions (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; 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: 7)

Switching to an open source ILS and open source discovery layer (we went live October 4, 2021) has already had a major positive impact on our work. ByWater Solutions are a true partner, and working together we will continue to make our library system better and better. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

The responsiveness of ByWater Solutions to questions (and we have had a LOT) and problems is excellent. The ongoing relationship with trainers assigned to us during migration is extremely helpful. Every contact has been a pleasant one with ByWater staff displaying cheerful patience in explaining something repetitively. We are using Aspen Discovery as our library's website. The web-building functionality is basic but sufficient for our needs, and is being upgraded frequently by the developers. Ease of updating and changing is great. There is a learning curve to creating custom pages which is where the continual support from the ByWater Aspen team makes a huge difference. We are joining in the Aspen Community now, too, and will be able to learn and share with other libraries using Aspen. The community is developing a platform to make it possible for one library to share templates with others, spreading the expertise to those who don't yet have it (aka us). After our Koha migration, the library locations were immediately up and running, able to complete the daily tasks. The amount of training provided by the vendor, and access to a test server for weeks of practice, made a huge difference. It's quick to learn basic circ tasks because all the modules you need to touch in a patron's interactions with the library are on the same screen: holds, payments, history, contact preferences, checkouts, etc. Setting up reports and tweaking the notices to fit our custom situation has been the most time consuming, especially without a knowledge of SQL on our staff. ByWater has customized everything we need without additional cost, and staff is beginning to understand and use SQL now. That happened more quickly than expected. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We migrated to Koha (supported by ByWater Solutions) to so save on annual costs for our ILS. We were able to redirect funds to materials, programs and technology. Koha is very customizable and the Koha community is a great resource for libraries. ByWater customer support is excellent. ByWater acquired Aspen Discovery which is an added annual cost that our library doesn't feel we can afford at this time. Some of our neighboring Koha libraries have moved to Aspen so we are beginning to feel a little less connected to them in regards to OPAC functionality. We would like to have seen some of the features in Aspen developed for native Koha libraries. Overall, our decision to move to Koha was the right one for our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

(Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

perhaps a question about or cost effectiveness would be relevant? (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We already use an open-source ILS - Koha (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've been thrilled working with ByWater to support Koha and Aspen Discovery. Generally our support is first rate, with very few reasons to complain. Our consortia is constant contact with ByWater support as we work through issues and chart our course for future developments. it is the type of organization where I know I can come to anyone in the company up to the owners and I will be given a serious response. I appreciate our relationship with them and our ability to use great open source software products that they support. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater Solutions made the migration to Koha SO EASY, and they are always SO QUICK to help us and answer any questions. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha works very well, but it does have a few drawbacks. One of these is less features for consortium libraries, particularly those comprised of independent libraries. Recent versions of Koha have helped address this issue, but it still requires a great deal of management to make a large consortium work well. Open source is a big advantage, because it means that the community works together to keep Koha up to date and add new features. However, if there is a disconnect between developers and library staff, it can mean new features or changes that cause more workflow disruption for librarians than the improvements are worth. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Generally, the service is fine, but...frustrating when it doesn't work. The company is pretty good about getting on problems and fixing them, though. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are already Koha users. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We already use Koha and Aspen, and are happy with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use Aspen now and live it (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Still Happy with Koha as an ILS, and bywater solutions provides top notch customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We only adopted the Koha ILS because we were able to contract with the [...] for hosting services and ongoing technical support in conjunction with migration services by Bywater. In addition, our ILS installation is part of the [...] consortial Koha implementation with a shared catalog. This arrangement provides us with additional avenues of support and consultation with regular meetings of member libraries organized around [...] special interest groups, e.g., tech services, library directors, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We use Koha (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would like to see added functionality in acquisitions and the advanced cataloging interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our ILS is provided and funded by our system (consortium). They make the decisions and they do all of the support for it. But, we are still very satisfied with it for our needs. Also, we don't have any electronic resources in our library, but N/A was not an option to answer that question. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are already using an open source system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We're very happy with Koha and proud to be an open source library. Unfortunately, our institution has merged with a university that does not use open source products. It is very likely that we will be forced to migrate away from Koha, though that decision has not been made yet and may not be made for another year. We do need to move away from EBSCO Discovery due to the unsustainable subscription cost and plan to switch over to WorldCat Discovery by summer of 2022. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are ideologically committed to open-source software and use it for our ILS, IR, and website. We are stuck with ByWater and Koha not necessarily because they're the best choice, but primarily because they're the _only_ choice in this space. I'd love to see a genuine competitor emerge (e.g., FOLIO is the best candidate currently). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I love the community and customization that come with using an open source ILS. Instead of a "make it work" mentality, we have the more constructive "how can we make it better?" approach. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

For "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" The system may be more effective than marked on, but we don't use it for our electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been with Bywaters for two separate migrations, leaving a consortium, and then joining another one. Each time Bywaters has been patient with us, and has made a complex migration into an easy to follow model. Their customer service is amazing, and koha and Aspen are even more so. Our patrons have enjoyed the ease of use, as well as our staff. We are very pleased with our ILS, and the continual improvements are just icing on the top. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We don't manage electronic resources with Koha so my response to that question doesn't really mean anything. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] is a network and its members use different types of discover services like EDS or Summon, and other do not use one at all. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We changed in 2020 from Polaris to Koha. We are very pleased with the change. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have begun an ILS feasibility study to find the best ways to connect our local libraries. It's in the very early stages, so we are not considering products at this time. We are beginning by talking over considerations such as decision making, responsibilities, resource sharing, communications, and how best to proceed. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We chose to implement an open source ILS when we recently migrated from our previous Horizon ILS to the Koha ILS supported by ByWater Solutions. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Aspen Discovery is a critical product coupled with Koha. It helps cover up catalog mistakes on the staff side and compiles similar title records together on the patron side to make things easy to find, including integration directly to OverDrive and hoopla. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We already use an open source ILS (Koha). Super satisfied with it! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha, our ILS, is open source. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

There is still room for improvement with Koha and Aspen, but with Bywater Solutions managing it, they are constantly taking feedback into account and making changes. I appreciate finally using a system where the end user (the library staff and the patrons) are heard. On the staff side, I find the acquisition module time consuming to use, and it is a little difficult to run reports. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are looking at implementing Aspen Discovery in FY23. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Only particularly noticable problem we're having with Koha is one of the recent-ish updates broke tabbing functionality between drop-down menus -- used to be able to tab through to confirm choices (i.e. never had to take your hands off the keyboard to add a new item to a record, a noteable time and effort saver), can't anymore -- but other than that it seems pretty good. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently working with our vendor, Bywater Solutions, to implement a child-friendly OPAC interface, and we are extremely happy with how it is working out and their willingness to work with us on this. Over the years we have found that the underlying principle of Bywater's service is that each library is unique and does things their own way. We really love that. It's the reason we left Follett in the first place, and it has really paid off for us. The features offered by Koha and the support offered by Bywater have been really excellent. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We use Koha, supported by Bywater Solutions and we are happy with it. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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

ByWater Solutions has been a great Koha support vendor to work with over the years. Our small but mighty research library probably would have more seriously considered staying with them and implementing FOLIO to help us better manage our ever-growing electronic resource collection, but our current staffing level and ability to fully engage with an open source solution has made OCLC's full-featured library services platform the more economic choice for us. If you are an open source library, perhaps with more focus on a print collection than ours has, I would still highly recommend ByWater Solutions as a vendor! (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are changing our discovery tool from Summon to Primo because our library is in the [...] and that Consortium universities are using Primo Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Could not answer "Where does this library direct most of its ILS support issues" -- all support is internal to our organization. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We did not use any vendor in our migration and implementation of Koha. We did it all in-house. Through out the process we have had a lot of co-operation and help from the Koha community. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Over the last year we implemented the Koha Carousel for e-books which looks very professional. PTFS Europe provide helpful support helped advising on the Carousel, have helped with SQL reports when hit blind spots and have explained why some facets do not display in search results. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Además del SIGB Koha, estamos migrando los datos de los Documentos Oficiales de la ALADI a un repositorio con DSpace. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

La biblioteca forma parte de una red, las decisiones sobre SIGB y otros aspectos relacionados no dependen del personal que aquí trabaja ni tampoco se tienen en cuenta sus opiniones ni las particulares características de este centro (Library type: Archive - Special Collections; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

ILS