Statistical Report for DDElibra
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2024 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2023 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2022 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2021 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2020 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2019 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2018 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2017 |
4 Responses for DDElibra in 2016 |
Statistics according to type and size categories
The following table presents the 2015 results according to the type and size of the library.
DDElibra | 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 | 5 | 6.80 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 4 | | 1 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
ILSFunctionality | 5 | 7.00 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 4 | | 1 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
PrintFunctionality | 5 | 4.60 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 4 | | 1 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
ElectronicFunctionality | 5 | 3.80 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 4 | | 1 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 5 | 6.00 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 4 | | 1 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
CompanyLoyalty | 5 | 3.60 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 4 | | 1 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
2015 Survey Results |
Product: DDElibra |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 5 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 8 | 6.80 | 7 |
ILS Functionality | 5 |
| | | | | | 2 | 1 | 2 | | 6 | 7.00 | 7 |
Print Functionality | 5 |
| 1 | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 4.60 | 4 |
Electronic Functionality | 5 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 3.80 | 3 |
Company Satisfaction | 5 |
| | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 3 | 5.60 | 6 |
Support Satisfaction | 5 |
| | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6.00 | 6 |
Support Improvement | 5 |
| 1 | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | | | 5 | 4.20 | 5 |
Company Loyalty | 5 |
1 | | 2 | | | | 1 | | 1 | | 2 | 3.60 | 2 |
Open Source Interest | 4 |
1 | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | 1 | 0 | 4.75 | 6 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 7 |
5 | 71.43% |
Considering new Interface | 7 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 7 |
5 | 71.43% |
Average Collection size: |
| 254229 |
Type | Count |
Public | 7 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
[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 |
3 Responses for DDElibra in 2014 |
2 Responses for DDElibra in 2013 |
5 Responses for DDElibra in 2012 |
3 Responses for DDElibra in 2011 |
1 Responses for DDElibra in 2010 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2009 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2008 |
0 Responses for DDElibra in 2007 |
2015 : gen: 6.80 company 5.60 loyalty 3.60 support 6.00
Comments
Our vendor has essentially lost their market share in Denmark, due to the new, national library system (Cicero, formerly Fælles Bibliotekssystem). We believe that we can tell that they've begun to regard us as exit customers.
(Type: Public)
Most danish public libraries are migrating to Cicero in 2015-2017. Vendor is Systematic.
DDB CMS is the most common OPAC/web system in Denmark, integrating website and database. DDB = Danskernes Digitale Bibliotek (Danish Digital Library)
Most danish libraries use Bibliotheca equipment and software for RFID handling of items.
(Type: Public)
Changing from DDELibra to Cicero in 2016 due to the result of a national public procurement.
(Type: Public)