Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for DDElibra

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.

DDElibraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS56.80 00041000
ILSFunctionality57.00 00041000
PrintFunctionality54.60 00041000
ElectronicFunctionality53.80 00041000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport56.00 00041000
CompanyLoyalty53.60 00041000



2015 Survey Results
Product: DDElibra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction5 1 1 1 2 86.807
ILS Functionality5 2 1 2 67.007
Print Functionality5 1 1 1 1 1 14.604
Electronic Functionality5 1 1 1 1 1 13.803
Company Satisfaction5 1 1 1 1 1 35.606
Support Satisfaction5 1 1 1 1 1 36.006
Support Improvement5 1 1 2 1 54.205
Company Loyalty5 1 2 1 1 23.602
Open Source Interest4 1 1 1 1 04.756

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 571.43%
Considering new Interface7 00.00%
System Installed on time?7 571.43%

Average Collection size: 254229

TypeCount
Public7
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


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)

ILS