| Questionnaire | Some questions were not asked of individual Evergreen libraries because they were about factors handled at the consortial level. Questions about serials and acquisitions modules were not asked of Evergreen libraries because (at the time) Evergreen did not have these modules. | |
| Tables | Each table cell has the absolute counts above and the percentages below. The question on installation time was removed because it reflected not the ILS, but the cleanliness of the cataloging data before installation. | |
| User satisfaction and cost tables |
An interesting result from the survey is shown in the first table (B1). This table shows the average scores on user satisfaction with various ILS aspects for the three types of ILSs: Koha, Evergreen, and proprietary ILSs. The table is sorted on the difference between open source and proprietary ILS satisfaction scores. The top row in the table is the item where proprietary ILSs most exceeded open source ILSs. The bottom row is where open source ILSs most exceeded proprietary ILSs. The cost questions were not asked of individual Evergreen libraries. The reported costs for Evergreen libraries (in Tables B2-B6) were derived by dividing the total consortium costs by the number of libraries (265) in the Georgia PINES consortium. These figures represent average costs for individual Evergreen libraries. | |
| Supplemental and summary tables |
| |
| Open-ended verbatim responses | Contains responses of participants who consented to be quoted. | |
| Thesis report | Survey of Open Source Integrated Library Systems, Linda Riewe, 2008 |