ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding)
To all libraries using Koha: As Joann mentioned, I am collecting data for the 2011 Annual Library Automation Perceptions survey. This survey aims to provide some general measurement of the levels of satisfaction that libraries have with their library automation systems and the organizations that support them. I am aware that many libraries using Koha do so independently without direct involvement of a support firm. Even in these cases, data regarding the perceived quality and functionality of the automation system would be very helpful. The survey also probes at the relative level of interest in open source automation systems. I do hope that all libraries using Koha will respond to the survey. The survey forms are linked to each library's entry in the lib-web-cats directory, so you will need to submit an entry if your library is not already represented. A large number of libraries using Koha are already represented, but I'm sure that there are many still missing. See: http://www.librarytechnology.org/libraries.pl?ILS=Koha http://www.librarytechnology.org/map.pl?ILS=Koha A strong response will help document the worldwide impact of Koha. To participate in the survey, you can start with the instructions given on the current posting on the top page of Library Technology Guides: http://www.librarytechnology.org/ Please let me know if you have an questions about the survey. Best regards, -marshall Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides <http://www.librarytechnology.org> http://www.librarytechnology.org <mailto:marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org> marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org <http://twitter.com/mbreeding> http://twitter.com/mbreeding From: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [mailto:koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] On Behalf Of Joann Ransom Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:07 PM To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Subject: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding) Hi all, Marshall is collecting responses for the technology report about libraries perceptions of ILSs. http://www.librarytechnology.org/ Cheers Jo. -- Joann Ransom RLIANZA Head of Libraries, Horowhenua Library Trust.
"Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>
I do hope that all libraries using Koha will respond to the survey. The survey forms are linked to each library's entry in the lib-web-cats directory, so you will need to submit an entry if your library is not already represented. A large number of libraries using Koha are already represented, but I'm sure that there are many still missing. See:
Hi Marshall. Usual requests. Please could you decouple the outdated one-to-one relationship between LMSes and support companies? And would you release (some subset of) the data as Open Access, Free and Open Source Software in a nice ready-to-analyse format this year? It would be great to see an Open survey which reflected the reality of the new LMS support landscape. Maybe one of the above in 2011, one in 2012? Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/
MJ, The survey needs to cover the automation scenarios in place in most libraries. Within any given niche, there may be some quirks, but almost all ILS implementations contract for support only from a single organization. In rare cases, there may be additional contracts to other vendors for development tasks, but the question focuses on support. I don't want to design the survey around edge cases that rarely occur. In this year's survey, I've added an additional factor for libraries to indicate whether they receive support directly from their "ILS vendor" or through an intermediary such as through another library or consortium. This gives me a way to analyze the results in a way that accommodates the situation in many consortia where the first-line support happens locally with only unresolved issues being directed to the contracted support organization. Libraries responding to the survey can always provide additional information in the comments field to explain any special circumstances, and often they do. I publish summaries of the survey responses in a way that protects the confidentiality of the responders. I do not plan to release the data beyond that. While it may be possible to scrub and normalize the data in a way that it could be shared publicly, it would take more effort beyond what I already put in to the survey. You are the only one that I recall that has asked for this in the five years that I have been running this survey. Best regards, -marshall Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org http://twitter.com/mbreeding -----Original Message----- From: MJ Ray [mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Cc: marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding) "Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>
I do hope that all libraries using Koha will respond to the survey. The survey forms are linked to each library's entry in the lib-web-cats directory, so you will need to submit an entry if your library is not already represented. A large number of libraries using Koha are already represented, but I'm sure that there are many still missing. See:
Hi Marshall. Usual requests. Please could you decouple the outdated one-to-one relationship between LMSes and support companies? And would you release (some subset of) the data as Open Access, Free and Open Source Software in a nice ready-to-analyse format this year? It would be great to see an Open survey which reflected the reality of the new LMS support landscape. Maybe one of the above in 2011, one in 2012? Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/
Marshall, It's not so much an 'edge-case' as a generalization. Product and Company are two separate things to track with an N to M relationship. Any given company can support multiple products (as has been true for many years) and a product can be supported by multiple companies (this tends to only be true of open source products, but not necessarily; a company could have a license with another to support their proprietary system). I'd be happy to help make the necessary structural changes to the system to support this generalization; I know time is tight, and it's probably more important to me right now than you. But given the trends in open source ILS systems (more people adopting, very few leaving), this is only going to become more and more common as time goes by. Cheers, -Ian On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Marshall Breeding < marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org> wrote:
MJ,
The survey needs to cover the automation scenarios in place in most libraries. Within any given niche, there may be some quirks, but almost all ILS implementations contract for support only from a single organization. In rare cases, there may be additional contracts to other vendors for development tasks, but the question focuses on support. I don't want to design the survey around edge cases that rarely occur.
In this year's survey, I've added an additional factor for libraries to indicate whether they receive support directly from their "ILS vendor" or through an intermediary such as through another library or consortium. This gives me a way to analyze the results in a way that accommodates the situation in many consortia where the first-line support happens locally with only unresolved issues being directed to the contracted support organization.
Libraries responding to the survey can always provide additional information in the comments field to explain any special circumstances, and often they do.
I publish summaries of the survey responses in a way that protects the confidentiality of the responders. I do not plan to release the data beyond that. While it may be possible to scrub and normalize the data in a way that it could be shared publicly, it would take more effort beyond what I already put in to the survey. You are the only one that I recall that has asked for this in the five years that I have been running this survey.
Best regards,
-marshall
Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org http://twitter.com/mbreeding
-----Original Message----- From: MJ Ray [mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Cc: marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding)
"Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>
I do hope that all libraries using Koha will respond to the survey. The survey forms are linked to each library's entry in the lib-web-cats directory, so you will need to submit an entry if your library is not already represented. A large number of libraries using Koha are already represented, but I'm sure that there are many still missing. See:
Hi Marshall. Usual requests. Please could you decouple the outdated one-to-one relationship between LMSes and support companies?
And would you release (some subset of) the data as Open Access, Free and Open Source Software in a nice ready-to-analyse format this year?
It would be great to see an Open survey which reflected the reality of the new LMS support landscape. Maybe one of the above in 2011, one in 2012?
Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal
It seems to me that the tiered support model for software products in far from a new thing. The manufacturer puts a product into the marketplace through a distribution chain. At each stop on the chain, Manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer, in-house support group, and end user there are some levels of support provided. The thing I keep seeing folks get confused about is the way the transaction happens in the open source community. Whether you "buy" Oracle or PostgreSQL as your database, there are plenty of suppliers and support tiers for each one. My price to consult on the admin for either one is the same. I suspect that while it's true that at any given moment in time, a given ILS implementation has a primary support resource, the more choices that become availablewill yield higher turnover, more specialization and/ or better quality of service. Let's hope for a bit of all three? Stev3 Wills Free Lance Nerd. On Nov 18, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Ian Walls wrote:
Marshall,
It's not so much an 'edge-case' as a generalization. Product and Company are two separate things to track with an N to M relationship. Any given company can support multiple products (as has been true for many years) and a product can be supported by multiple companies (this tends to only be true of open source products, but not necessarily; a company could have a license with another to support their proprietary system).
I'd be happy to help make the necessary structural changes to the system to support this generalization; I know time is tight, and it's probably more important to me right now than you. But given the trends in open source ILS systems (more people adopting, very few leaving), this is only going to become more and more common as time goes by.
Cheers,
-Ian
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Marshall Breeding <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org
wrote: MJ,
The survey needs to cover the automation scenarios in place in most libraries. Within any given niche, there may be some quirks, but almost all ILS implementations contract for support only from a single organization. In rare cases, there may be additional contracts to other vendors for development tasks, but the question focuses on support. I don't want to design the survey around edge cases that rarely occur.
In this year's survey, I've added an additional factor for libraries to indicate whether they receive support directly from their "ILS vendor" or through an intermediary such as through another library or consortium. This gives me a way to analyze the results in a way that accommodates the situation in many consortia where the first-line support happens locally with only unresolved issues being directed to the contracted support organization.
Libraries responding to the survey can always provide additional information in the comments field to explain any special circumstances, and often they do.
I publish summaries of the survey responses in a way that protects the confidentiality of the responders. I do not plan to release the data beyond that. While it may be possible to scrub and normalize the data in a way that it could be shared publicly, it would take more effort beyond what I already put in to the survey. You are the only one that I recall that has asked for this in the five years that I have been running this survey.
Best regards,
-marshall
Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org http://twitter.com/mbreeding
-----Original Message----- From: MJ Ray [mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Cc: marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding)
"Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>
I do hope that all libraries using Koha will respond to the survey. The survey forms are linked to each library's entry in the lib-web-cats directory, so you will need to submit an entry if your library is not already represented. A large number of libraries using Koha are already represented, but I'm sure that there are many still missing. See:
Hi Marshall. Usual requests. Please could you decouple the outdated one-to-one relationship between LMSes and support companies?
And would you release (some subset of) the data as Open Access, Free and Open Source Software in a nice ready-to-analyse format this year?
It would be great to see an Open survey which reflected the reality of the new LMS support landscape. Maybe one of the above in 2011, one in 2012?
Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
Ian, So here is the response I sent to MJ off-list: “I don't have time to dig out an irc client, but I do regularly read the logs at http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/ I didn't say that open source support is an edge case. Of course it isn't, and I as much as anyone appreciate the enormous impact of open source in the library automation space. What I said is that having multiple support contracts is rare. If you could provide evidence to the contrary I would definitely be interested.” This year’s survey does, in fact, track the support company separate from the support vendor: [cid:image001.png@01CCA60B.AE09CA30] The initial value is supplied through a table look-up, but responders can adjust the venders if needed. This approach accommodates for the common situation where many different firms provide support services for the same software. What it doesn’t do is account for a given library working with multiple support vendors, which I believe is the rare case. -marshall From: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [mailto:koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] On Behalf Of Ian Walls Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 3:10 PM To: Marshall Breeding Cc: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding) Marshall, It's not so much an 'edge-case' as a generalization. Product and Company are two separate things to track with an N to M relationship. Any given company can support multiple products (as has been true for many years) and a product can be supported by multiple companies (this tends to only be true of open source products, but not necessarily; a company could have a license with another to support their proprietary system). I'd be happy to help make the necessary structural changes to the system to support this generalization; I know time is tight, and it's probably more important to me right now than you. But given the trends in open source ILS systems (more people adopting, very few leaving), this is only going to become more and more common as time goes by. Cheers, -Ian On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Marshall Breeding <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org<mailto:marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>> wrote: MJ, The survey needs to cover the automation scenarios in place in most libraries. Within any given niche, there may be some quirks, but almost all ILS implementations contract for support only from a single organization. In rare cases, there may be additional contracts to other vendors for development tasks, but the question focuses on support. I don't want to design the survey around edge cases that rarely occur. In this year's survey, I've added an additional factor for libraries to indicate whether they receive support directly from their "ILS vendor" or through an intermediary such as through another library or consortium. This gives me a way to analyze the results in a way that accommodates the situation in many consortia where the first-line support happens locally with only unresolved issues being directed to the contracted support organization. Libraries responding to the survey can always provide additional information in the comments field to explain any special circumstances, and often they do. I publish summaries of the survey responses in a way that protects the confidentiality of the responders. I do not plan to release the data beyond that. While it may be possible to scrub and normalize the data in a way that it could be shared publicly, it would take more effort beyond what I already put in to the survey. You are the only one that I recall that has asked for this in the five years that I have been running this survey. Best regards, -marshall Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org<mailto:marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org> http://twitter.com/mbreeding -----Original Message----- From: MJ Ray [mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop<mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop>] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org<mailto:koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> Cc: marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org<mailto:marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org> Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding) "Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org<mailto:marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>>
I do hope that all libraries using Koha will respond to the survey. The survey forms are linked to each library's entry in the lib-web-cats directory, so you will need to submit an entry if your library is not already represented. A large number of libraries using Koha are already represented, but I'm sure that there are many still missing. See:
Hi Marshall. Usual requests. Please could you decouple the outdated one-to-one relationship between LMSes and support companies? And would you release (some subset of) the data as Open Access, Free and Open Source Software in a nice ready-to-analyse format this year? It would be great to see an Open survey which reflected the reality of the new LMS support landscape. Maybe one of the above in 2011, one in 2012? Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop<http://www.software.coop>, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/ _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org<mailto:Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/ -- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com<mailto:ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com> Twitter: @sekjal
On 19/11/11 09:06, Breeding, Marshall wrote:
This approach accommodates for the common situation where many different firms provide support services for the same software. What it doesn’t do is account for a given library working with multiple support vendors, which I believe is the rare case.
-marshall
We are involved in one situation where an overseas Koha hosting provider hosts the library and we provide local training and support. We have had another similar situation in the past, but we now host that library. These may or may not be isolated examples. Bob Birchall Calyx
Marshall, Ah, I think I may have misunderstood. I was interested in keeping product and vendor separate, which it looks like you've done (but with ergonomic fix to assume the common 1-1 relationship at first selection). The case of having multiple vendors or multiple products would introduce a much larger change in system complexity (going from 1 to n always does), and I can't cite many examples where it'd be relevant. There are cases were some of our partners have contracted with others for developments, while we do the primary support, but this is pretty rare for us, and I'm not sure if it'd even be within the scope of what you're trying to track with this survey. Thanks for clarifying. I look forward to seeing the results of this year's survey! -Ian 2011/11/18 Breeding, Marshall <marshall.breeding@vanderbilt.edu>
Ian,****
** **
So here is the response I sent to MJ off-list:****
** **
“I don't have time to dig out an irc client, but I do regularly read the logs at http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/****
** **
I didn't say that open source support is an edge case. Of course it isn't, and I as much as anyone appreciate the enormous impact of open source in the library automation space. What I said is that having multiple support contracts is rare. If you could provide evidence to the contrary I would definitely be interested.”****
** **
This year’s survey does, in fact, track the support company separate from the support vendor:****
****
** **
The initial value is supplied through a table look-up, but responders can adjust the venders if needed.****
** **
This approach accommodates for the common situation where many different firms provide support services for the same software. What it doesn’t do is account for a given library working with multiple support vendors, which I believe is the rare case.****
** **
-marshall****
** **
** **
*From:* koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [mailto: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] *On Behalf Of *Ian Walls *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2011 3:10 PM *To:* Marshall Breeding *Cc:* koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
*Subject:* Re: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding)****
** **
Marshall,
It's not so much an 'edge-case' as a generalization. Product and Company are two separate things to track with an N to M relationship. Any given company can support multiple products (as has been true for many years) and a product can be supported by multiple companies (this tends to only be true of open source products, but not necessarily; a company could have a license with another to support their proprietary system).
I'd be happy to help make the necessary structural changes to the system to support this generalization; I know time is tight, and it's probably more important to me right now than you. But given the trends in open source ILS systems (more people adopting, very few leaving), this is only going to become more and more common as time goes by.
Cheers,
-Ian****
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Marshall Breeding < marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org> wrote:****
MJ,
The survey needs to cover the automation scenarios in place in most libraries. Within any given niche, there may be some quirks, but almost all ILS implementations contract for support only from a single organization. In rare cases, there may be additional contracts to other vendors for development tasks, but the question focuses on support. I don't want to design the survey around edge cases that rarely occur.
In this year's survey, I've added an additional factor for libraries to indicate whether they receive support directly from their "ILS vendor" or through an intermediary such as through another library or consortium. This gives me a way to analyze the results in a way that accommodates the situation in many consortia where the first-line support happens locally with only unresolved issues being directed to the contracted support organization.
Libraries responding to the survey can always provide additional information in the comments field to explain any special circumstances, and often they do.
I publish summaries of the survey responses in a way that protects the confidentiality of the responders. I do not plan to release the data beyond that. While it may be possible to scrub and normalize the data in a way that it could be shared publicly, it would take more effort beyond what I already put in to the survey. You are the only one that I recall that has asked for this in the five years that I have been running this survey.****
Best regards,
-marshall
Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org http://twitter.com/mbreeding
****
-----Original Message----- From: MJ Ray [mailto:mjr@phonecoop.coop] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 1:15 PM To: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Cc: marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] ILS Perceptions survey (Marshall Breeding)
"Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>
I do hope that all libraries using Koha will respond to the survey. The survey forms are linked to each library's entry in the lib-web-cats directory, so you will need to submit an entry if your library is not already represented. A large number of libraries using Koha are already represented, but I'm sure that there are many still missing. See:
Hi Marshall. Usual requests. Please could you decouple the outdated one-to-one relationship between LMSes and support companies?
And would you release (some subset of) the data as Open Access, Free and Open Source Software in a nice ready-to-analyse format this year?
It would be great to see an Open survey which reflected the reality of the new LMS support landscape. Maybe one of the above in 2011, one in 2012?
Thanks, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Webmaster, Debian Developer, Past Koha RM, statistician, former lecturer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for various work through http://www.software.coop/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/****
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal****
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal
Marshall,
Ah, I think I may have misunderstood. I was interested in keeping product and vendor separate, which it looks like you've done (but with ergonomic fix to assume the common 1-1 relationship at first selection). The case of having multiple vendors or multiple products would introduce a much larger change in system complexity (going from 1 to n always does), and I can't cite many examples where it'd be relevant. +1 And I think it's very rare to have 2 vendors *at the same time* doing
Le 19/11/2011 15:21, Ian Walls a écrit : training/migration with X, then, having Y for support is uncommon but sometimes happend. What happend more frequently is to have some task sub-contracted by X to Y. For example, I know for sure we sub-contract sometimes development of new features to catalyst, and I'm almost sure we are not the only ones ;-) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
At 01:56 PM 11/18/2011 -0600, Marshall Breeding wrote: [snip]
Libraries responding to the survey can always provide additional information in the comments field to explain any special circumstances, and often they do.
I'm glad there was a "comments" field, as I was only able to answer two of the questions (ID 61961) - anyway it's done. Best - Paul
"Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>
The survey needs to cover the automation scenarios in place in most libraries. Within any given niche, there may be some quirks, but almost all ILS implementations contract for support only from a single organization. In rare cases, there may be additional contracts to other vendors for development tasks, but the question focuses on support. I don't want to design the survey around edge cases that rarely occur.
I've yet to do a development contract that doesn't include any support. Is there any evidence that multi-supplier support rarely occurs in free and open source software LMSes? The perceptions survey doesn't cope with other scenarios, so it can't see them. What other LMS research is out there? [...stuff about consortia and then...]
Libraries responding to the survey can always provide additional information in the comments field to explain any special circumstances, and often they do.
And does it inspire change in the survey?
I publish summaries of the survey responses in a way that protects the confidentiality of the responders. I do not plan to release the data beyond that. While it may be possible to scrub and normalize the data in a way that it could be shared publicly, it would take more effort beyond what I already put in to the survey.
So invite some help?
You are the only one that I recall that has asked for this in the five years that I have been running this survey.
Would it really change your mind if there were multiple requests for open data? Out of respect for your time, I haven't deliberately publicised this idea outside the Koha community, but if it'd change things... Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and LMS developer, statistician. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
On 2011-11-19, at 11:41 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
"Marshall Breeding" <marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org>
I publish summaries of the survey responses in a way that protects the confidentiality of the responders. I do not plan to release the data beyond that. While it may be possible to scrub and normalize the data in a way that it could be shared publicly, it would take more effort beyond what I already put in to the survey.
So invite some help?
indeed.. i would be willing to help automate that 'scrub and normalize' process an anonymized, publicly available version of the lib-web-cats dataset would be profoundly helpful towards the promotion and advocacy of free/open-source library systems cheers, Mason -- KohaAloha, NZ
participants (9)
-
Bob Birchall -
Breeding, Marshall -
Ian Walls -
Marshall Breeding -
Mason James -
MJ Ray -
Paul -
Paul Poulain -
Stephen Wills