| 2022 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 220 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 44 | 86 | 70 | 8 | 7.84 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 219 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 47 | 88 | 59 | 8 | 7.74 | 8 | ||
| Print Functionality | 217 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 36 | 88 | 77 | 8 | 7.93 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 204 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 25 | 32 | 45 | 37 | 33 | 7 | 6.42 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 209 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 32 | 59 | 97 | 9 | 7.97 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 212 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 36 | 56 | 101 | 9 | 7.98 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 209 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 23 | 49 | 110 | 9 | 7.85 | 9 |
| Open Source Interest | 141 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 37 | 9 | 8.01 | 10 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 227 | 12 | 5.29% |
| Considering new Interface | 227 | 14 | 6.17% |
| System Installed on time? | 227 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 194101 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 85 |
| Academic | 64 |
| School | 8 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 12 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 5 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2021 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 212 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 56 | 89 | 57 | 8 | 7.85 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 212 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 62 | 82 | 48 | 8 | 7.66 | 8 | ||
| Print Functionality | 210 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 28 | 89 | 80 | 8 | 8.06 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 202 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 25 | 30 | 46 | 41 | 31 | 7 | 6.39 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 208 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 28 | 75 | 87 | 9 | 7.99 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 205 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 43 | 56 | 89 | 9 | 7.95 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 205 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 32 | 62 | 92 | 9 | 7.88 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 119 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 36 | 9 | 8.41 | 10 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 217 | 7 | 3.23% |
| Considering new Interface | 217 | 17 | 7.83% |
| System Installed on time? | 217 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 251749 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 88 |
| Academic | 45 |
| School | 3 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 15 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 12 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 6 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 5 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2020 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 302 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 14 | 58 | 120 | 97 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 303 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 19 | 66 | 114 | 86 | 8 | 7.69 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 302 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 54 | 106 | 124 | 9 | 8.01 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 285 | 13 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 13 | 30 | 33 | 61 | 64 | 54 | 8 | 6.53 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 288 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 47 | 82 | 126 | 9 | 7.83 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 296 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 34 | 87 | 140 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 289 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 9 | 40 | 68 | 137 | 9 | 7.61 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 181 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 11 | 4 | 9 | 12 | 44 | 9 | 7.73 | 10 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 315 | 16 | 5.08% |
| Considering new Interface | 315 | 16 | 5.08% |
| System Installed on time? | 315 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 510756 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 121 |
| Academic | 100 |
| School | 10 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 27 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 11 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 7 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2019 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 279 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 15 | 62 | 92 | 89 | 8 | 7.65 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 278 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 23 | 72 | 95 | 65 | 8 | 7.47 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 274 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 37 | 101 | 113 | 9 | 8.01 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 267 | 14 | 2 | 9 | 8 | 22 | 34 | 36 | 49 | 54 | 39 | 8 | 6.16 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 271 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 29 | 81 | 121 | 9 | 7.77 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 268 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 13 | 36 | 72 | 117 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 257 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 22 | 64 | 21 | 28 | 43 | 64 | 5 | 6.50 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 257 | 17 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 25 | 52 | 116 | 9 | 7.14 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 249 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 158 | 9 | 7.38 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 280 | 17 | 6.07% |
| Considering new Interface | 280 | 48 | 17.14% |
| System Installed on time? | 280 | 248 | 88.57% |
| Average Collection size: | 6225175 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 84 |
| Academic | 116 |
| School | 9 |
| Consortium | 7 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 15 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 4 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2018 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 254 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 13 | 55 | 79 | 86 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 253 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 70 | 83 | 59 | 8 | 7.42 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 247 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 16 | 39 | 84 | 92 | 9 | 7.80 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 234 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 14 | 36 | 32 | 63 | 36 | 32 | 7 | 6.30 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 245 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 15 | 33 | 62 | 112 | 9 | 7.78 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 244 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 16 | 31 | 66 | 108 | 9 | 7.73 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 237 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 47 | 17 | 36 | 45 | 59 | 9 | 6.68 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 247 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 11 | 25 | 58 | 117 | 9 | 7.49 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 219 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 16 | 167 | 9 | 7.92 | 9 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 255 | 18 | 7.06% |
| Considering new Interface | 255 | 19 | 7.45% |
| System Installed on time? | 255 | 232 | 90.98% |
| Average Collection size: | 107262 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 89 |
| Academic | 78 |
| School | 8 |
| Consortium | 4 |
| Special | 24 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 11 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
The following table presents the 2017 results according to the type and size of the library.
| Koha | 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 | 360 | 7.49 | 84 | 7.29 | 15 | 8.13 | 3 | 109 | 7.68 | 14 | 7.36 | 0 | 21 | 7.71 | 9 | 7.44 | ||
| ILSFunctionality | 358 | 7.27 | 84 | 6.99 | 15 | 7.60 | 3 | 108 | 7.48 | 13 | 7.00 | 0 | 21 | 7.43 | 9 | 7.00 | ||
| PrintFunctionality | 356 | 7.58 | 83 | 7.45 | 15 | 8.07 | 3 | 108 | 7.46 | 14 | 7.86 | 0 | 21 | 8.05 | 9 | 7.00 | ||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 342 | 6.17 | 82 | 6.01 | 15 | 6.00 | 3 | 101 | 6.37 | 14 | 6.00 | 0 | 20 | 6.50 | 9 | 5.44 | ||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 345 | 7.52 | 80 | 7.28 | 14 | 7.86 | 3 | 106 | 7.68 | 14 | 7.57 | 0 | 21 | 7.57 | 9 | 7.78 | ||
| CompanyLoyalty | 339 | 6.99 | 79 | 6.57 | 14 | 8.07 | 3 | 105 | 7.25 | 14 | 7.57 | 0 | 20 | 7.25 | 9 | 6.89 | ||
| 2017 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 360 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 11 | 13 | 32 | 84 | 114 | 98 | 8 | 7.49 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 358 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 16 | 45 | 86 | 116 | 73 | 8 | 7.27 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 356 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 9 | 22 | 65 | 131 | 106 | 8 | 7.58 | 8 |
| Electronic Functionality | 342 | 12 | 5 | 15 | 14 | 19 | 42 | 58 | 59 | 75 | 43 | 8 | 6.17 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 345 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 29 | 53 | 95 | 129 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 345 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 24 | 29 | 53 | 79 | 137 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 329 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 26 | 84 | 34 | 34 | 62 | 76 | 5 | 6.61 | 7 | |
| Company Loyalty | 339 | 19 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 12 | 28 | 20 | 49 | 61 | 133 | 9 | 6.99 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 325 | 22 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 10 | 8 | 17 | 24 | 213 | 9 | 7.46 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 364 | 32 | 8.79% |
| Considering new Interface | 364 | 45 | 12.36% |
| System Installed on time? | 364 | 323 | 88.74% |
| Average Collection size: | 118002 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 124 |
| Academic | 105 |
| School | 21 |
| Consortium | 9 |
| Special | 31 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 5 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2016 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 269 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 17 | 19 | 56 | 92 | 76 | 8 | 7.57 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 269 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 23 | 68 | 101 | 49 | 8 | 7.35 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 268 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 18 | 47 | 104 | 77 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 260 | 13 | 11 | 13 | 18 | 34 | 31 | 55 | 60 | 25 | 8 | 6.07 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 262 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 27 | 34 | 80 | 88 | 9 | 7.47 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 256 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20 | 22 | 35 | 75 | 84 | 9 | 7.36 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 245 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 65 | 26 | 35 | 42 | 54 | 5 | 6.60 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 249 | 10 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 19 | 14 | 32 | 53 | 97 | 9 | 7.07 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 238 | 18 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 3 | 7 | 23 | 159 | 9 | 7.53 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 275 | 17 | 6.18% |
| Considering new Interface | 275 | 35 | 12.73% |
| System Installed on time? | 275 | 233 | 84.73% |
| Average Collection size: | 134577 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 105 |
| Academic | 86 |
| School | 12 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 24 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2015 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 270 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 20 | 59 | 85 | 78 | 8 | 7.43 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 271 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 27 | 61 | 104 | 52 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 268 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 40 | 102 | 91 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 |
| Electronic Functionality | 256 | 17 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 14 | 26 | 36 | 54 | 55 | 36 | 8 | 6.19 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 260 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 22 | 35 | 71 | 96 | 9 | 7.41 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 258 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 16 | 21 | 31 | 69 | 97 | 9 | 7.37 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 249 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 63 | 21 | 17 | 40 | 80 | 9 | 6.71 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 251 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 18 | 19 | 15 | 53 | 104 | 9 | 6.92 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 228 | 19 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 17 | 158 | 9 | 7.46 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 277 | 10 | 3.61% |
| Considering new Interface | 277 | 33 | 11.91% |
| System Installed on time? | 277 | 248 | 89.53% |
| Average Collection size: | 145133 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 120 |
| Academic | 64 |
| School | 13 |
| Consortium | 10 |
| Special | 23 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 1 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2014 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 230 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 23 | 64 | 73 | 48 | 8 | 7.36 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 230 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 33 | 68 | 62 | 43 | 7 | 7.17 | 7 | |
| Print Functionality | 222 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 17 | 39 | 89 | 59 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 222 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 18 | 30 | 27 | 53 | 47 | 22 | 7 | 6.14 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 225 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 17 | 41 | 61 | 79 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 221 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 22 | 32 | 57 | 78 | 9 | 7.38 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 213 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 52 | 18 | 29 | 33 | 52 | 5 | 6.53 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 209 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 18 | 16 | 23 | 45 | 79 | 9 | 7.07 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 196 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 21 | 137 | 9 | 7.79 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 237 | 16 | 6.75% |
| Considering new Interface | 237 | 33 | 13.92% |
| System Installed on time? | 237 | 202 | 85.23% |
| Average Collection size: | 173934 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 99 |
| Academic | 56 |
| School | 13 |
| Consortium | 8 |
| Special | 20 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 1 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2013 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 194 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 17 | 42 | 58 | 59 | 9 | 7.47 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 194 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 17 | 53 | 61 | 41 | 8 | 7.25 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 193 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 25 | 74 | 63 | 8 | 7.63 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 183 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 37 | 35 | 27 | 7 | 6.15 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 186 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 26 | 46 | 79 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 185 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 15 | 28 | 39 | 78 | 9 | 7.41 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 178 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 37 | 21 | 20 | 32 | 50 | 9 | 6.69 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 186 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 8 | 21 | 29 | 89 | 9 | 7.12 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 168 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 130 | 9 | 7.83 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 199 | 11 | 5.53% |
| Considering new Interface | 199 | 29 | 14.57% |
| System Installed on time? | 199 | 168 | 84.42% |
| Average Collection size: | 547867 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 75 |
| Academic | 52 |
| School | 13 |
| Consortium | 5 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 8 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2012 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 152 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 35 | 50 | 41 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 152 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 39 | 46 | 34 | 8 | 7.18 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 149 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 24 | 36 | 59 | 9 | 7.39 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 147 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 27 | 39 | 51 | 9 | 7.19 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 140 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 26 | 14 | 19 | 25 | 36 | 9 | 6.58 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 143 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 17 | 24 | 64 | 9 | 7.00 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 139 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 105 | 9 | 7.93 | 9 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 157 | 7 | 4.46% |
| Considering new Interface | 157 | 11 | 7.01% |
| System Installed on time? | 157 | 129 | 82.17% |
| Average Collection size: | 173045 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 69 |
| Academic | 38 |
| School | 7 |
| Consortium | 3 |
| Special | 15 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2011 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 166 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 34 | 53 | 39 | 8 | 7.06 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 163 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 17 | 53 | 42 | 27 | 7 | 6.90 | 7 |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 159 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 19 | 42 | 54 | 9 | 6.90 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 159 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 14 | 20 | 36 | 54 | 9 | 6.79 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 153 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 35 | 18 | 14 | 25 | 39 | 9 | 6.44 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 158 | 17 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 23 | 70 | 9 | 6.65 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 136 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 95 | 9 | 7.68 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 170 | 11 | 6.47% |
| Considering new Interface | 170 | 21 | 12.35% |
| System Installed on time? | 170 | 139 | 81.76% |
| Average Collection size: | 125739 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 73 |
| Academic | 43 |
| School | 11 |
| Consortium | 3 |
| Special | 14 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 4 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2010 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 127 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 36 | 28 | 42 | 9 | 7.54 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 120 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 6 | 14 | 27 | 47 | 9 | 7.31 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 122 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 13 | 29 | 44 | 9 | 7.18 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 123 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 9 | 14 | 18 | 50 | 9 | 7.07 | 8 |
| Company Loyalty | 123 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 62 | 9 | 7.15 | 9 | |
| Open Source Interest | 118 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 110 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 | |||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 131 | 8 | 6.11% |
| Considering new Interface | 131 | 15 | 11.45% |
| System Installed on time? | 131 | 109 | 83.21% |
| Average Collection size: | 112613 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 56 |
| Academic | 30 |
| School | 9 |
| Consortium | 5 |
| Special | 8 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 0 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2009 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 86 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 15 | 22 | 21 | 11 | 7 | 6.63 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 82 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 10 | 18 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 6.32 | 7 |
| Support Satisfaction | 83 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 14 | 20 | 14 | 8 | 6.20 | 7 |
| Support Improvement | 75 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 17 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 15 | 5 | 5.53 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 80 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 4 | 9 | 15 | 22 | 9 | 5.96 | 7 | |
| Open Source Interest | 76 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 66 | 9 | 8.37 | 9 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 87 | 8 | 9.20% |
| Considering new Interface | 87 | 6 | 6.90% |
| System Installed on time? | 87 | 65 | 74.71% |
| 2008 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 33 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 6.33 | 7 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 33 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6.39 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 33 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6.03 | 6 |
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 33 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 9 | 6.00 | 7 | |
| Open Source Interest | 28 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 9 | 8.29 | 9 | |||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 33 | 7 | 21.21% |
| Considering new Interface | 33 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 33 | 25 | 75.76% |
| 2007 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Koha | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 19 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 7.21 | 7 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 21 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 7.48 | 7 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 22 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 6.82 | 7 | |||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 21 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 6.71 | 8 | |||
| Open Source Interest | 24 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 9 | 8.67 | 9 | ||||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 27 | 3 | 11.11% |
| Considering new Interface | 27 | 3 | 11.11% |
| System Installed on time? | 27 | 0 | 0.00% |
2022 : gen: 7.84 company 7.97 loyalty 7.85 support 7.98
2021 : gen: 7.85 company 7.99 loyalty 7.88 support 7.95
2020 : gen: 7.83 company 7.83 loyalty 7.61 support 7.89
2019 : gen: 7.65 company 7.77 loyalty 7.14 support 7.67
2018 : gen: 7.67 company 7.78 loyalty 7.49 support 7.73
2017 : gen: 7.49 company 7.59 loyalty 6.99 support 7.52
2016 : gen: 7.57 company 7.47 loyalty 7.07 support 7.36
2015 : gen: 7.43 company 7.41 loyalty 6.92 support 7.37
2014 : gen: 7.36 company 7.52 loyalty 7.07 support 7.38
2013 : gen: 7.47 company 7.52 loyalty 7.12 support 7.41
2012 : gen: 7.38 company 7.39 loyalty 7.00 support 7.19
2011 : gen: 7.06 company 6.90 loyalty 6.65 support 6.79
2010 : gen: 7.54 company 7.31 loyalty 7.15 support 7.18
2009 : gen: 6.63 company 6.32 loyalty 5.96 support 6.20
2008 : gen: 6.33 company 6.39 loyalty 6.00 support 6.03
2007 : gen: 7.21 company 7.48 loyalty 6.71 support 6.82
Koha is our circulation module, and not used as a full ILS. We have contracted BibLibre and Libriotech for some development but our aim is to make all functionality developed for [...] part of the main Koha branch. We prefer talking about library systems architecture, rather than specific platforms. But we are currently very happy with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
All [...] municipal libraries have merged to one consortium [...] during 2017. Six regional libraries in [...] have created a massive consortium [...] , which is an in-house company offering support to Koha to the member libraries (total number of municipal libraries is 93). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
it a good program for managing data and resources. This program make us have convenient very much, However it quite difficult for changing something for example display , web bg , content but the team services are good for supporting us and helping us solve the problems. (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We used Equinox for one year as a support service for Koha when our library sysadmin left and we were unable to replace him. I have answered your questions about support based on Equinox. Ultimately, we dropped them and contracted the service with our former sysadmin. We were not happy with Equinox and are very happy with our former sysadmin. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
El soporte del sistema Koha lo hace un bibliotecario que es parte del equipo de la Biblioteca no una empresa externa. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Bywater Solutions has proven over and over again that they are willing to help the customer in anyway that they can. This year they wrote a report for me to calculate time students spent in our Tutoring Center - a part of the Library. They go above and beyond in service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Bywater Solutions, supporting Koha, has been extremely helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ByWater solutions is an excellent support company and a pillar of the Koha development community. No other United States Koha support provider compares to their involvement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been using the KOHA ILS for over three years and are very pleased with not only the initial system, but all the subsequent upgrades that have been done annually since. Bywater Solutions hosts our ILS, and provides support within the parameters of a state library supported consortium. While this can be cumbersome at times for support, the NH State Library technical staff are very efficient, and Bywater does solve our problems. And we have had no problems with the servers. I would highly recommend this system and Bywater Solutions to anyone. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We would consider open access and self hosting of a discovery service, but we do not have access to a server of our own, nor someone to maintain it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha seems more geared toward public libraries, less so for academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The only reason we are considering a switch to another ILS from Koha is so that we may join the statewide consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our Learning Resource Center has been transitioning to a full fledged academic library over the past year. We are a small tech academy with limited funds and a small collection. Koha has provided us with wonderful guidance and customer service. As a part-time solo librarian, I know we couldn't have picked a better ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since we have not yet migrated to Koha, I left most of this blank but will be happy to fill it out next year when I have more data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
We have open source now. Koha, supported through ByWater. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
ByWater Solutions is a great company to work with. Their staff are knowledgeable, helpful, innovative and positive. They are quick to respond to support tickets. They will create custom CSS, jQuery and SQL reports any time we ask. They provide webinars and tutorial videos for the upgrades that come out twice a year (which they take care of installing) We saved a substantial amount of the annual budget by going open source with Koha and being hosted by BWS. We were able to put our savings into more programs and resources for the public. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I don't know whether bywater's customer support has gotten better over the past year because I started in July. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We love Koha and the support we get from ByWater. ByWater is responsive to our requests and follow through on promises. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have had an ope source ILS for 5 years. We are very happy with the ability to help direct the forward motion of the Koha, ILS. Our support vendor is ByWater Solutions and they are very proactive in the Koha community. I would never want to go back to a proprietary ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
it is open source (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
In a former position, I was the person who initially chose to look at Koha for the consortial ILS. I believe in the open source principle and think we still made a good decision. That being said, NO ILS is perfect and Koha has a few areas that I would like to see improved, especially the ability to discover and link to ebook sources (including those OTHER THAN Overdrive) easily. As a cataloger at heart, I'd like to see a more robust expert cataloger interface, but the existing one is workable. Authorities needs work; pre-loading the LC authorities files (ncluding genre) would be a good step in the right direction. But, as I started, I still think Koha is a good choice for libraries and Bywater Solutions seems to do a good job (we started with LibLime in 2008, moving in 2010). If I were choosing again, Koha would still be looked at... Biblionix is one I'd look at (it was off our radar back then). (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We already use an Open Source ILS. Koha by Bywater (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
When[...] updated it was problematic for me. Another librarian connected me with ByWater. The problem was solved & solved well within 24 hours. Thank you (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We put in problem-tickets via the State Library, but Bywater Solutions has been the general educator and communicator. We're pleased with the response of both. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
After many years in a public school library with up to date library automation systems, then switching to Koha at a public library, I feel like I have gone back to the June Cleaver days. The inventory needs to be updated, there needs to be a true batch delete when weeding and such as that. They just did an update and it is better than it had been previously so I know they are trying. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The directors in our library consortium met last week and discussed Koha and working with ByWater Solutions. Our current contract ends in the Spring of 2018 and we all decided we like Koha and want to continue contracting with ByWater Solutions. ByWater Solutions staff are so easy to work with and very knowledgeable. Their system for launching tickets for help with the system works very well and we usually get a response in an hour or less. They stick with us until we find a solution to any problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The product is still under development. We are incorporating new functions with every upgrade. Still not perfect. The only comment regarding our support company is that unfortunately we live on different time zones. Practically we have no instant F2F communication. All LIS issues are usually solved overnight. Sometimes it takes time, when more emails need to be send both ways. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We love having a vendor/support company that listens to us and is responsive. We love having an open source system where tweaks can be made: we are currently working with Bywater to create a report that isn't currently available. We also love being able to interface with a database like Novelist K-8 directly in our OPAC. And, although we haven't yet been part of a software development, it's great for us to know that we can pay for things to be changed. The challenges lie in the fact that Koha is used in very few elementary school libraries. Over time our goal is to make changes to our system so that our OPAC meets our young students' needs better, and so that our patron database access points meet our needs more accurately. We also found that the interface that we were hoping for between Koha and Ebsco Discovery didn't quite work as we'd hoped: it's still a little unclear to us whether that was because our setup was inadequate or the connections are flaky. Working with Ebsco tech support is a great deal more opaque than Bywater, and that project is still on our To Do list. Overall, we are very happy with both Koha and Bywater compared to the rigidity and unresponsiveness of Follett and their insistence that they knew best what we needed. P.S. The customer support question got a 5 from me because it has stayed the same over the past year. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with our transition from OCLC WMS to Koha. We are a smaller library that didn't get the support needed from OCLC. ByWater showed us great support through our migration, and continue to impress us. Koha does require a little more knowledge for creating reports and other backend features, but on the whole is very intuitive. We hope that they are able to develop an ILL feature and that some of the small bugs get fixed, but those are minor issues. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am new to this position, so I cannot compare current experience to that of previous years. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're very pleased with Bywater and the support they provide. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The Koha community is making great strides with functionality making Koha a mature and extremely viable ILS especially when combined with a support company as customer service driven as ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The customer service is excellent! I also enjoy the reports and the clean interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Low ranking on Koha's ability to manage electronic resources is only because it cannot manage them as a stand alone. Can be enhanced with discovery products, which we do not have yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha Bywater Solutions is a great company to work with, very pleasant and responsive customer service, good product, we are so pleased with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Bywater is always helpful and patient with our small library. Amazing help for the price. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been very impressed with ByWater Solutions. I would highly recommend them to another library. Their support team is very friendly, helpful and realize the problem I am having is a real problem and are happy to help. They do not make you feel like you do not have a clue about what you are talking about. Again, I would highly recommend this ILS Product to other libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
KOHA works well for us. We were promiced spell check and search suggestions. This functionality has not materialized yet. For elementary students discovery is a huge need. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Every update results in breakdowns somewhere in the overall system, particularly in the accounting part, specifically fines. Illogical and inconsistent listing of search results Fast cataloging has too many steps. Inventory reporting program is difficult , insufficient, and does not meet the information needs of the library. Arrangement of report results is often not helpful, requiring results to be tabulated by hand rather than automatically adding them up. Similar reports give different figures for the same inquiry. Cataloging has too many boxes and superfluous requirements for most cataloging needs and slows down the process unnecessarily. Fines function: arrangement of results on page is erratic and therefore confusing when determing what is paid and what is not. Totals for different kinds of fine transactions must be run separately. Four steps to pay fines! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
the consortium and this library are satisfied with the open source ILS that we have been using since 2012. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Use Koha- Bywater (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
this survey is a bit confusing in the combination of questions. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Bywater's KOHA has improved since our school and public library consortium began using it, but it is still a primitive system, in comparison with Horizon, our previous ILS. Check in and check out speed is now average, rather than painfully slow. Searching with the staff module is still inaccurate. The OPAC is somewhat better. Creating reports requires specialized computer skills. Bywater's customer service has improved. In the beginning Bywater mistakenly cut off access to KOHA when they detected a problem, and failed to correctly identify its source. Many of our problems are referred to the community, and other libraries may contribute funds for Bywater to resolve the issue. The resolution takes a long time. The z39.50 record searching and importing is faster this year, and works well. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Koha strives hard to meet their clients needs and work on developments often. Sometimes, the developments are quite complicated and take time. Reports can be challenging for novices. But I've seen lots of improvement in the 2.5 years I've worked with them. They have been very responsive especially during emergencies over the weekend or holidays and have helped us with any catalog hiccups. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I did not answwer the question about electronic resources because as a consortia we have engaged that resource. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Overall, we're very satisfied with our work with ByWater Solutions and the KOHA ILS. It has better flexibility than our previous ILS and the pricing is substantially better. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The coming implementation of Elastic Search will make Koha's OPAC and search capability much better. That would raise most of my "8" responses to "9". (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Stats are for the entire consortium. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
WorldCat Discovery is great for exposing our e-resources to the uninitiated, but the limited customization options and consistent metadata linking issues without the ability to correct them locally have left us wanting. We may consider other Discovery layers, definitely open source, but the proprietary interests will be invited to make their case. EBSCO EDS taking the lead by working with Koha on their API is welcome news, and something we'll definitely consider. As Koha continues to integrate CORAL ERMS, (the ERMS we use), what it lacks for an academic library's e-resource needs is quickly becoming a nonissue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Decent support from ByWater - but uneven in that a wealthy library can pay for whatever enhancements they want/need while poorer libraries need to wait to see if their needs get addressed. True to some extent for other vendors but not quite to the same extreme... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We require a more specialized product that works for a special library. The current product is more for a public library, which means that we have different needs that it doesn't quite support. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our ILS, Koha, is open source, which has enabled us to make customizations that have improved the user interface and the workflow for many staff members. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ILS, Koha, is open source, which has enabled us to make customizations that have improved the user interface and the workflow for many staff members. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The capabilities of Koha are limited only by the imagination. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very satisfied with Koha and ByWater Solutions. We are able to make most of the customizations that we need. And ByWater Solutions is always very helpful and responsive in making those changes happen or in solving any problems or technical issues that we encounter. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is an open source ILS. It does have some features of a discovery interface being added in different updates. Our library is part of a consortium that uses this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We currently have Koha, which is an open source ILS. We do not have the expertise nor the time to gain the expertise to manage a cooperative open source library system. We preferred dealing with our previous vendor, who created and implemented the solutions to all our needs. But the price was what made our director chose this product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have been using koha through Bywater for less six months. Bywater staff have been engaged and responsive during the implementation, but I think the implementation has suffered from the dispersed support structure, and lack of a single contact/project manager for the implementation. I am spending a lot of time following up on issues, and there doesn't seem to be a central Bywater staff person who is responsible for the entire implementation, including UX/OPAC design and issues that came up as a result of the data migration. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Looking forward to the mentor program! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Amazing support from our vendor (Calyx), they have a real passion for Koha and are great to work with. Koha ILS more than suits our needs and has a great international community of developers and librarians who actively support the system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha just gets better and better! We are very happy with Calyx and also appreciate the fact that we are part of a community. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm unhappy with the cost of EDS, and considering alternatives. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We implemented Koha ILS with Catalyst IT this year, hence the '5' rating for improvement to customer service - there is no comparison year. Some limitations regarding serials management are the reason for a 7 rating generally: if those were resolved rating would be higher - generally speaking Koha is an excellent and highly configurable system. Electronic management is better on more recent versions - we are on v16.11 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Extremely happy with the Koha Open Source system and the additional support we are getting from Catalyst, a NZ based support company that also manages our hosting and consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Considering the fact that we use an open source, in house managed ILS since 2009, more than half of the questions above are difficult to answer because they presuppose a proprietary ILS vendor. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our ILS software is based on an open source platform (KOHA v. 3.22). For that reason we do not have an external customer support service. The ILS support is being carried out in-house from our Automation and Networking Dept staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
A lot of ILS related support comes from koha.se, The Swedish Koha User Group, a group of libraries looking into Koha as ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
This library doesn't depend on a company for the ILS. Vendor and support are internal HR. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Valoración muy positiva tras el primer año de implantación Funcionalidades, amigabilidad y adaptabilidad alta de Koha, que permite niveles de integración muy altos. Al mismo tiempo los desarrollos tanto a nivel de la comunidad Koha, como de la propia biblioteca, permiten hacer sistemas acordes a las necesidades y expectativas de los usuarios. Potencialidad para gestionar tanto pequeñas como grandes bibliotecas universitarias. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As a library with an open-source ILS already in place (since January 2016) that is self-migrated with no external data conversion, self-implemented and configured, and self-maintained, most of these questions do not apply to us. There is no "N/A" option available to select for them. As such, these questions do not have any response. (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We already have only because we have two internal IT skilled librarians who can do coding and programming required to customize the tool (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Reference (non-lending) library. All IT work carried out "in-house" on open-source products, so references to "vendors" in this survey should be taken with a grain of salt. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is still going strong in our schools. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ILS support issues are dealt with by the community user's group through an online forum. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
our installation done by my self not a company (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Some questions were left blank because this library is using KOHA, an open source ILS. We have no vendor and no technical assistance. A volunteer IT specialist has assisted the library director/librarian installing, setting up and updating the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We don't use a vendor, it's been put together and maintained by one librarian and one volunteer IT guru. The number of items in the collection is unknown because about half of it is still listed only in the card catalogue. Especially the sound recordings and smaller ephemeral publications. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha and DSpace at our institution were implemented by myself, as the Head of IT Department, and I'm providing support, migration, customization, implementation of additional modules, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Software is working well and upto our organization needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
For the maintenance of our Koha, we refer to Calyx group in Australia. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We've had KOHA for 6 months now as are getting over the initial shock. Our previous commercial library system was good, in hindsight excellent, and customer service worked very well. But idealistic an thrifty librarians that we are, we chose to switch to open code KOHA. We still believe in KOHA despite this current (old) version's unfriendly appearance, lack of user support and tendency to fall down a lot. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The authority control in Koha is deficient, there is a significant setback in relation to the previous ILS (VIRTUA) (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
1. Koha is most suitable ILS for all kind of Libraries - AAcademic, Public or Special irrespective of size and types of collection and kinds of patrons. 2. Need some improvements especially Serials control. 3. Customisation is a serious problem and need to depend on service provider as we don't get the required one from Koha Community (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
1. Updation of latest Koha software from time to time to the Library under AMC 2. Integration of Institutional repository and E-Resource management system like COREL ... (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in the process of moving from an externally hosted version of KOHA to bringing it in-house. Nothing wrong with the vendor, just have the capacity in the data centre and now that we know the system better are fine to host it ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have 6000 books in our collection, we have just over 200 students. Most books are non-fiction, 5000 approx., with fiction books numbering 1000 approx. Koha is simple and efficient for our school library. The vendor support team is helpful, especially for technical work like importing new students lists at the beginning of the school year and when updating software. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Installation, configuration and maintance service are made by staff at this library (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Actualmente tenemos el SIGB Kobli, versión perdonalizada de KOHA, valoramos pasar directamente a KOHA (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Suomeksi ks. https://koha-suomi.fi/ (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just changed over from Atriuum to the Aspencat library catalog system in August, 2017. That is why I can't answer the question about customer support having gotten better since we just switched over. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are totally satisfied with our ILS and the staff (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been a LibLime Koha library for about 6 years. For the last couple years we have been waiting for their new product based on code fusion of LibLime Academic and LibLime Public systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Able to integrate the ILS with the College's Active Directory which has increased user sanctification with support to College system. Next step will be looking at integrating fines with the College student management/financial system. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Reduction in number of physical items and increase in ebooks and electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The fork in the Koha development has led PTFS to the creation of a proprietary product, Bibliovation, that they are encouraging our consortium to migrate to. With Liblime and Bibliovation Koha, PTFS has lost track of the open-source origins of Koha. It is my understanding that we are no longer benefiting from the open source community and that when we, our consortium, pay for enhancements, these enhancements are not made available to the open source community. We are, in essence, paying for the development of THEIR proprietary products. This is is a bad business model for libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Don't actually have much interaction with vendor these days. The ILS runs, doesn't really give us any problems, but there's not much 'sparkle' about it either. Tech services staff are happy enough with it; public services staff seem bored with it and are where the impetus for investigating something new is coming from. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I was confused by the consortium vs. company questions. I'm not particularity impressed with LibLime but I love our consortium. The consortium is very timely in responding to issues. I feel that LibLime overall is not as proactive as it should be. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The number of items in collection depends on whether to include subscription stuff - when we got EDS we moved away from adding records for subscriptions into our catalog as maintaining them is a huge hassle. We have 150,000+ additional ebooks through EBSCO, 135,000+ discs from Naxos...etc. I don't really have a good way of keeping track of how much stuff we have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Nothing new - always good! (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Very satisfied with the product and services provided. When I need assistance I usually get it though but not often right away. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The ILS is great, fairly intuitive. It provides the user the opportunity develop and customise they own library management system. The support that Edmund and David provide is outstanding. The training and help modules are very good. I can't emphasis enough the fantastic support and online help that Edmund provides. Northern Territory Library with the support of Edmund and David have been initiative and implemented new ideas to improve access to all our collections, improve workflow and the professional develop administrators and staff who are administers of the system. [...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha is quite adequate for what is an open source elibrary, set up for a specific clientele but which has lots of other online users. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I remain more than happy with my Koha system and the vendor, Prosentient Systems, and hope never to have to change. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are using Koha and are very happy with the LMS for price and support from Prosentient. It's fit for purpose, given we are a small collection. Integration between Koha and EDS is next step we are investigating. We don't have many e-resources at this stage, just looking into this now. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current ILS is great for public and school libraries, but lacks robustness related to Course Reserves and some Cataloging features needed for an academic library. It is important for our accreditation to join the Prospector system of academic and research libraries, and Koha does not interact with Prospector, plain and simple. Therefore, we are planning to migrate to OCLC WorldShare next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Quite happy, esp. with the amount of customization available to us (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We moved to a new ILS and new support company over the summer soto a degree we are still assessing the ILS and company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The ILS we use is open source and managed and maintained by a limited company. As open source becomes more popular the demands/support requests on the company increase and thus it can be difficult for them to manage (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We've been impressed with the flexibility of Koha and have seen a real benefit to staff willing to invest time in learning SQL. PTFS have proved to be steady hands when responding to any larger support issue but have sometimes dragged their heels when assisting with smaller issues. I think this is just par for the course when working with a smaller company than our previous ILS supplier (SirsiDynix). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We do not use the acquisitions module due to the small amount we have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha manages our print resources but not our eResources, although there are catalogue records for eBooks and other eResources on Koha with links to EBSCO or to websites. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] forma parte de [...], no es por tanto, independiente para decidir cambios, u otro tipo de cuestiones sobre el SIGB. Tampoco se han tenido en cuenta las opiniones, valoraciones o necesidades del personal técnico de la biblioteca del [...] a la hora de diseñar el SIGB recientemente implantado. Con la empresa proveedora no hemos tenido ningún contacto, pues es la [...] a intermediaria (Library type: Archive - Special Collections; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
La biblioteca del Arquivo do Reino de Galicia forma parte de la Rede de Bibliotecas de la Xunta de Galicia y no tiene capacidad de decisión ni para seleccionar SIGB ni empresas de SIGB, por este motivo quedan sin responder las preguntas relacionadas con la empresa. La Rede de Bibliotecas de Galicia no ha tenido en cuenta ni las necesidades ni sugerencias que el personal técnico de la Biblioteca del ARG ha hecho a la hora de implementar el nuevo SIGB. (Library type: Archive - Special Collections; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
In July 2017, we migrated from Horizon to KOHA supported by Québec based Collecto (previously CCSR). This is part of a consortia service by this vendor. I believe that we are the 29th installation of KOHA in Québec's network of 48 community colleges. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
|
|
|