Statistical Report for Virtua
2012 Survey Results |
2011 Survey Results |
2010 Survey Results |
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 | 43 |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 6.30 | 7 |
Company Satisfaction | 42 |
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 6.21 | 7 |
Support Satisfaction | 40 |
| 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 6.35 | 7 |
Support Improvement | 40 |
| | 2 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 6.08 | 5 |
Company Loyalty | 41 |
2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 5.95 | 7 |
Open Source Interest | 41 |
11 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | | 0 | 2.51 | 2 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 45 |
7 | 15.56% |
Considering new Interface | 45 |
16 | 35.56% |
System Installed on time? | 45 |
37 | 82.22% |
Average Collection size: |
| 1066884 |
|
Product: Virtua |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 35 |
1 | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 15 | 2 | 8 | 6.80 | 7 |
Company Satisfaction | 35 |
1 | | | | | 6 | 5 | 9 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 6.80 | 7 |
Support Satisfaction | 35 |
1 | | | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 6.69 | 7 |
Support Improvement | 34 |
| | | | 1 | 10 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6.76 | 7 |
Company Loyalty | 35 |
2 | | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 6.23 | 7 |
Open Source Interest | 35 |
10 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 | | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.71 | 2 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 35 |
5 | 14.29% |
Considering new Interface | 35 |
16 | 45.71% |
System Installed on time? | 35 |
30 | 85.71% |
Average Collection size: |
| 653420 |
|
Product: Virtua |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 13 |
1 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | | 7 | 5.92 | 7 |
Company Satisfaction | 13 |
1 | | 1 | | | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | | 7 | 6.08 | 7 |
Support Satisfaction | 13 |
1 | | 2 | | | 1 | | 5 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5.92 | 7 |
Support Improvement | 13 |
1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5.46 | 5 |
Company Loyalty | 13 |
2 | | 1 | | 1 | | | 4 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 5.77 | 7 |
Open Source Interest | 13 |
3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | 2 | 0 | 2.92 | 2 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 13 |
2 | 15.38% |
Considering new Interface | 13 |
4 | 30.77% |
System Installed on time? | 13 |
10 | 76.92% |
Average Collection size: |
| 678616 |
|
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 |
7 | 33.33% |
System Installed on time? | 21 |
15 | 71.43% |
|
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
Many features don't work as advertised out of the box, and turnaround time is extremely poor. Their turnaround goal for non-emergency issues is two weeks, and they often don't even make that time frame.
(Type: Academic)
We are in a consortium with [...] and other LIbraries in the [...]. We find our version of Virtua out of date.
(Type: Public)
-
(Type: Academic)
Consistent problems with timeliness and completeness of technical support
(Type: Government Agency)
[...] has begun a consortium project utilizing Evergreen, management is looking to move to it as a cost savings
(Type: Public)
We change discoverytool from Summon to EBSCO
Planning to upgrade OPAC to VTLS Chamo
(Type: Academic)
The Library is new; it was commissioned on June 1, 2012. We are now doing the data entry of the materials.
(Type: Special)
Thank you VTLS in providing good libraryn automation system for our library.
(Type: Academic)
The company should make significant improvements on its systems, (Virtua and Chamo) regarding the capacity, performance and user-freindliness, in order to cope with the needs of large libraries like us for handling large volume of data and transactions, and matching the scale of operation. The systems now are not efficient enough for large libraries.
(Type: Public)
An open source ILS would be a long term consideration, not an option for the immediate future. We continue to monitor the OS ILS software communities and marketplace closely.
(Type: Academic)
Effective and efficient integration within and between corporate systems is becoming more critical - ILS, enrolments, finance systems etc. Traditional ILS do not offer this or are only slowly moving towards APIs etc. Workflows within and between ILS modules and other systems also need to be made more efficient, which is why we are interested in the latest developments of Intota and Alma - unified resource management, discovery layer integration etc. In relation to cloud computing, ILS vendors should realise that not all organisations will pursue external hosting of data, especially if hosted services are located overseas and therefore subject to foreign jurisdictions.
(Type: Academic)
We run a consoritia service for 35 libraries so our library system has to be able to support libraries with different clients and policies.
(Type: State)