Statistical Report for Virtua
| 2009 Survey Results |
2008 Survey Results |
2007 Survey Results |
| Product: Virtua |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 21 |
1 | | 1 | 1 | | | 5 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 6.29 | 7 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 21 |
1 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 6.48 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 21 |
| | 2 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 6.52 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 20 |
| | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 6.85 | 7 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 20 |
4 | | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 5.55 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 20 |
5 | 4 | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3.70 | 4 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 21 |
3 | 14.29% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 21 |
6 | 28.57% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 21 |
14 | 66.67% |
|---|
|
| Product: Virtua |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 32 |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 6 | | 7 | 6.00 | 7 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 33 |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 8 | | 7 | 5.79 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 33 |
1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 5.55 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 32 |
5 | | 2 | 4 | | 5 | 2 | 7 | 7 | | 7 | 4.94 | 6 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 33 |
8 | 8 | 5 | | | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3.06 | 2 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 33 |
10 | 30.30% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 33 |
12 | 36.36% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 33 |
31 | 93.94% |
|---|
|
| Product: Virtua |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 23 |
| | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | | 7 | 6.17 | 7 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 24 |
| 1 | | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 6.08 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 24 |
1 | | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5.58 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 23 |
2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4.61 | 5 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 23 |
2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4.35 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 24 |
2 | 8.33% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 24 |
6 | 25.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 24 |
1 | 4.17% |
|---|
|
Comments
We have the option of moving the [...] provincial implementation of Evergreen, but are in no hurry to do so as we're now seeing many public library features added to Virtua now that Queens Borough is driving the feature set. Likewise, many improvements to Evergreen are anticipated as KCLS prepares to implement it.
The idea of open source is attractive. Considering our need for Hebrew script display and the issues presented by right to left directionality we do not believe that open source systems are ready at this time. Another issue is our need for support for the system. We do not have a technology team on staff that could take this on.
As member of [...] Consortium, we have to consider all the questions about migrating to a new ILS, acquiring a search interface, .. in collaboration with other libraries members of the Consortium.
We're not in a position to migrate to a new ILS soon, but we are keeping a very close eye on Sitka, the consortia of libraries in British Columbia sharing an instance of Evergreen. If Sitka initiative did not exist, we would not have such a focused interest in Evergreen. Currently Sitka is focused on public libraries; if we were to migrate to Evergreen we'd have to be assured there is a commitment by Sitka, or some other local body, of local development of Evergreen for academic libraries. We're motivated to move away from our current ILS for typical reasons: we are not seeing the value of substantial annual maintenance cost which goes up every year; have not addressed repeated requests to improve/fix certain features; change is just too slow and/or not in the direction that benefits us, a relatively small library system.