Library Technology Guides

Statistical Report for Koha -- Independent

2013 Survey Results	2012 Survey Results	2011 Survey Results	2010 Survey Results	2009 Survey Results	2008 Survey Results	2007 Survey Results
Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 42 1 1 1 9 14 16 9 7.93 8 ILS Functionality 42 1 1 1 2 7 16 14 8 7.74 8 Print Functionality 42 1 1 1 2 2 17 18 9 8.00 8 Electronic Functionality 38 2 2 2 1 2 7 7 8 7 8 6.32 7 Company Satisfaction 36 1 1 2 1 3 10 18 9 7.86 9 Support Satisfaction 36 1 1 4 6 5 19 9 7.72 9 Support Improvement 35 1 1 1 8 4 4 6 10 9 6.71 7 Company Loyalty 37 3 1 1 2 1 1 7 21 9 7.49 9 Open Source Interest 37 3 1 1 1 1 30 9 7.68 9 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 45 2 4.44% Considering new Interface 45 5 11.11% System Installed on time? 45 29 64.44% Average Collection size: 2163175 Type Count Public 8 Academic 19 School 6 Consortia 0 Special 6 Size Category Count [1] Under 10,000 8 [2] 10,001-100,000 22 [3] 100,001-250,000 3 [4] 250,001-1,000,000 1 [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 0 [6] over 10,000,001 1	Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 39 1 1 1 8 15 13 8 7.77 8 ILS Functionality 39 1 1 4 7 9 17 9 7.77 8 Print Functionality 0 0 7.77 Electronic Functionality 0 0 7.77 Company Satisfaction 36 1 1 1 1 3 4 11 14 9 7.50 8 Support Satisfaction 34 2 1 1 1 2 6 12 9 8 6.97 8 Support Improvement 34 2 2 6 2 6 7 9 9 6.74 7 Company Loyalty 33 3 2 1 1 3 6 17 9 7.00 9 Open Source Interest 35 2 1 2 30 9 8.37 9 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 40 2 5.00% Considering new Interface 40 5 12.50% System Installed on time? 40 26 65.00% Average Collection size: 287179 Type Count Public 10 Academic 15 School 2 Consortia 0 Special 10 Size Category Count [1] Under 10,000 9 [2] 10,001-100,000 24 [3] 100,001-250,000 2 [4] 250,001-1,000,000 2 [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 2 [6] over 10,000,001 0	Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 31 1 2 5 12 11 8 7.97 8 ILS Functionality 31 1 1 1 9 9 10 9 7.61 8 Print Functionality 0 0 7.61 Electronic Functionality 0 0 7.61 Company Satisfaction 26 1 1 3 4 8 9 9 7.35 8 Support Satisfaction 26 3 1 1 1 1 4 9 6 8 6.62 8 Support Improvement 24 1 2 1 5 4 6 5 8 6.42 7 Company Loyalty 24 3 4 1 6 10 9 6.88 8 Open Source Interest 22 1 1 1 2 17 9 8.41 9 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 31 0 0.00% Considering new Interface 31 5 16.13% System Installed on time? 31 20 64.52% Average Collection size: 114492 Type Count Public 4 Academic 16 School 3 Consortia 0 Special 5 Size Category Count [1] Under 10,000 7 [2] 10,001-100,000 14 [3] 100,001-250,000 2 [4] 250,001-1,000,000 3 [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 0 [6] over 10,000,001 0	Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 38 1 3 9 7 18 9 7.87 8 ILS Functionality 0 0 7.87 Print Functionality 0 0 7.87 Electronic Functionality 0 0 7.87 Company Satisfaction 32 2 3 4 1 6 16 9 7.44 9 Support Satisfaction 34 2 4 4 1 7 16 9 7.38 8 Support Improvement 34 2 1 2 4 3 4 18 9 7.44 9 Company Loyalty 34 2 2 1 1 4 4 20 9 7.56 9 Open Source Interest 34 1 1 1 31 9 8.68 9 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 39 1 2.56% Considering new Interface 39 3 7.69% System Installed on time? 39 28 71.79% Average Collection size: 73783 Type Count Public 15 Academic 12 School 5 Consortia 0 Special 3 Size Category Count [1] Under 10,000 5 [2] 10,001-100,000 20 [3] 100,001-250,000 5 [4] 250,001-1,000,000 1 [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 0 [6] over 10,000,001 0	Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 26 4 5 10 7 8 7.77 8 ILS Functionality 0 0 7.77 Print Functionality 0 0 7.77 Electronic Functionality 0 0 7.77 Company Satisfaction 22 1 3 4 5 9 9 7.82 8 Support Satisfaction 23 2 2 4 6 9 9 7.78 8 Support Improvement 21 1 8 2 2 8 5 6.95 7 Company Loyalty 21 1 2 1 1 3 13 9 7.81 9 Open Source Interest 20 1 19 9 8.85 9 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 27 1 3.70% Considering new Interface 27 1 3.70% System Installed on time? 27 17 62.96%	Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 7 3 2 2 7 7.86 8 ILS Functionality 0 0 7.86 Print Functionality 0 0 7.86 Electronic Functionality 0 0 7.86 Company Satisfaction 7 1 3 3 8 8.29 8 Support Satisfaction 7 3 2 2 7 7.86 8 Support Improvement 0 not applicable Company Loyalty 7 1 2 4 9 8.43 9 Open Source Interest 7 1 6 9 8.86 9 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 7 0 0.00% Considering new Interface 7 0 0.00% System Installed on time? 7 3 42.86%	Product: Koha -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 1 1 8 8.00 8 ILS Functionality 0 0 8.00 Print Functionality 0 0 8.00 Electronic Functionality 0 0 8.00 Company Satisfaction 1 1 5 5.00 5 Support Satisfaction 1 1 5 5.00 5 Support Improvement 0 not applicable Company Loyalty 1 1 5 5.00 5 Open Source Interest 1 1 9 9.00 9 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 3 1 33.33% Considering new Interface 3 0 0.00% System Installed on time? 3 1 33.33%

Comments

We are doing all the work ourselves (volunteers and I). There is no vendor or company about whom to answer some of these questions. (We are still in the process of migrating to KOHA. Since our server failure was catastrophic we have had to rebuild the system from the ground up using mostly volunteer labor. I think we will be very happy with KOHA, once we have actually started using it. (Type: Public)

Please note we operate a do-it-yourself LMS (Type: School)

We are currently using an outdated open source Koha. I plan to be fully migrated to Koha 3.14 or better by Fall 2014. (Type: Academic)

en realidad estamos evaluando vufind para integrar el catalogo de biblioteca en koha con el de archivo en icaatom (Type: Special)

In-house installation -- no vendors employed (Type: Special)

It would be nice to have additional answers to choose from that specifically address the open source options, for example we address or support questions to the Koha Community wiki and list serv. (Type: Public)

I have an IT department, two people, that dialogue with koha on problems. (Type: School)

Recientemente hemos migrado nuestro SGIB. Pasamos de un servicio enlatado a uno de código abierto, KOHA. contratamos una empresa que se encargó de la instalación, personalización y migración del sistema, y con la cual hemos tenido una experiencia muy buena. (Type: Academic)

Difficult to answer some of these questions because we setup the ILS in-house without support from outside vendors or contract help. (Type: Special)

Questions in this survey are mostly inappropriate for our situation. We don't have a contract with any vendor, instead we have two systems librarians taking care of our Koha library system. We cooperate with Koha community. Question about interest in open source ILS option is also inappropriate because we already use one. (Type: Academic)

Usamos Koha 3.4 y actualmente estamos considerando seriamente en actualizar a la versión mas reciente 3.14 (Type: Academic)

Koha's "customer support" is user chat rooms. When we had an IT director who was enthusiastic about working with open source, Koha worked well for us. Our new director is not, and it is not working well. Other librarians in the district might rate Koha zero all the way down. (Type: School)

- (Type: Academic)

I migrated to Koha by downloading the software and tinkering with it until I got it right, so we didn't really use a company--just the Koha IRC channel and discussion list. Although I've been using computers for years, I have little experience in Ubuntu. Nevertheless, I was able to set up the entire system on my own in a very short time. Koha is amazingly easy to use, infinitely configurable, and open source. Some modules need improvement, but the Koha community is far more open and responsive to requests than any proprietary system I have used. Long live Koha!! (Type: Medical)

We have no electronic resources. There is no contract or schedule for open source software. (Type: Independent Research)

This library implemented KOHA inhouse i.e. not using a support company. With the growing use of Open Source ILS provision should be made in this survey for those implementing such systems with an external company. (Type: Special)

The library has just installed Koha independently, using only its IT contractor and the librarian to carry out the install and data migration and the system is not yet live (anticipated go-live date is mid-February 2014). It is however a huge step up from the library's previous ILS, Bookmark, and thus far is proving to be completely satisfactory. The responses may be different next year after nearly a full academic year of operation. (Type: Art)

Using Koha 3.14. Very happy! (Type: School)

We are not taking any support from an company, but managing the ILS by ourselves. (Type: Academic)

Consortium implemented Koha with a separate database per library in the group. (Type: Consortium)

Some of these questions are not relevant to our system. Ex: there is no contract. KOHA is a free catalog operating system. We have not contacted customer support since first installed a decade ago. (Type: Public)

---

Library Technology Guides is a service provided by Marshall Breeding, independent consultant, author, and speaker.