Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2014: An International Survey of Library Automation

by . February 10, 2015

Introduction

Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

This eighth annual Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing over three thousand libraries from 80 countries describing experiences with 154 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey results include 994 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
Polaris continues to receive top ratings in all categories from large public libraries and in the general satisfaction, overall product functionality, and print functionality among medium-sized public libraries.
Apollo from Biblionix received top ratings in all categories from small and very small public libraries.
Alma from Ex Libris received top ratings from large academic libraries in the management of electronic resources, customer support, and customer loyalty. Ex Libris Aleph scored best among large academic libraries for print functionality and overall product satisfaction.
Sierra from Innovative interfaces received top ratings from large and mid-sized academic libraries for overall product functionality.
OCLC WorldShare Management Services received top ratings from mid-sized academic libraries general product satisfaction, in functionality for managing electronic resources, for product support, and company loyalty.
Small academic libraries rated Koha (managed independent of a support firm) highest in overall product functionality, management of print materials, and for product support.
Library.Solution from The Library Corporation received top ratings from mid-sized public libraries for product support.
School libraries rated OPALS most positively in response to all survey questions.

Previous editions: 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

Caveats

Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

Constructive criticism

The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

Survey Response Demographics

Collection Size Categories
CountMoreless
318010000
90910,00150,000
43450,001100,000
517100,001250,000
304250,001500,000
234500,0011,000,000
3091,000,00110,000,000
1710,000,001
3,042Total of Categories
Counts where collection size provided

This year, the survey attracted 3,141 responses from libraries in 80 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,284 responses), followed by Canada (192), Australia (136), United Kingdom (94), and New Zealand (40). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.

While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in Spanish, translated by Nieves González, and French, Alexandre Lemaire, in addition to English. Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (75), Argentina (17), Chile (13), Colombia (13), Mexico (5), Venezuela (4), and Ecuador (3). A total of 857 of the 3,141 total responses (27.3 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 3,141 responses: ( 2012=3,002 2012=3,030 2011=2,432, 2010=2,173, 2009=2,099, 2008=1,453, 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 19,126 responses. The survey was open between December 12, 2014 and January 29, 2015.

There were 98 of the 3,141 responses with no collection size data provided.

Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,465 responses, followed by academic libraries with 994. This year 282 responses came from school libraries, a significant decrease from the 654 received last year.

The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:

General Information about the Survey

The survey attracted 20 or more responses from libraries using:

Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 15 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

This article is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author.

This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.


Survey Results

Migration Patterns and Trends

The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.

Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7%
Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2%
Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8%
Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9%
Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3%
Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.2% 5.8% 10.8%
Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8%
Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.8%

Note: The percentage of libraries indicating they are considering migration increased for Millennium, Aleph, and Voyager when those companies began promoting their next-generation products.

In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (162), WorldShare Management Services (154), Sierra (115), and with far fewer considering Intota (55) or Kuali OLE (31). At this time, Intota has not been placed into production by any libraries and Kuali OLE has been implemented by two libraries for print resource management. It is not surprising that libraries show stronger interest in products that are at least in the early phase of adoption more than those that have not yet been proven.

The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

Current ILS Responses Shopping Percent Candidate Products
Alma Evergreen Intota Koha Kuali Polaris Sierra SirsiDynix WorldShare
ALEPH 500 140 64 45.7% 37 0 5 6 10 1 4 2 18
Horizon 128 54 42.2% 5 7 4 5 2 10 10 6 7
Library.Solution 93 10 10.8% 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Millennium 216 123 56.9% 41 4 17 11 5 1 63 9 43
Polaris 170 9 5.3% 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Symphony 361 75 20.8% 14 4 5 9 7 3 12 3 20
Voyager 149 101 67.8% 43 3 17 8 7 0 12 4 38
Any Product 162 29 55 71 31 21 115 41 154

Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

International Perspective

The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 857 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

ProductTotal responsesUnited StatesInternational
All Products3,1412,284857
Symphony361242119
Millennium21614769
Aleph1406971
Voyager14912524
Alma462917
Polaris17016010
Axiell Aurora15015
WorldShare Management Services742810
Absys.Net27027

Print versus Electronic Functionality

One pattern seen in this year’s survey is that libraries rate capabilities in print functionality higher than that that for managing electronic resources. While some products rate higher than their competitors in electronic resource management, in most cases print functionality receives higher ratings. Among mid-sized academic libraries, for example, the highest rating given for electronic resource functionality (6.85 for WorldShare) is below the lowest ranking given for print functionality (6.88 for Alma). The average ranking across all products for print functionality (7.32) far exceeds the average for functionality for electronic resource management (5.04). These figures suggest that functionality for managing print resources has become mature and sets a high standard while the capability of products for managing electronic resources falls below expectations.


Selected Companies and Products

Ex Libris

Ex Libris focuses on large academic libraries. Its three products were well represented in this year’s survey: Alma (46), Aleph (139), and Voyager (147). In the large academic library group, Ex Libris products received top rankings in customer loyalty (Alma: 7.5, Aleph 6.56, Voyager 6.54.

Alma

Alma performed best in the large academic library category for effectiveness in electronic resources (6.61), though it was rated much lower in the management of print resources (6.50). Among this group, customer support was deemed moderate (6.17) relative to the other products in this category. The large academic library expressed a high degree of loyalty to Ex Libris (7.41), significantly ahead of the second best competitor in responses to this question. This group rated Alma second (6.44) in overall product satisfaction, second only Ex Libris Aleph (6.89). Mid-sized academics rated Alma positively (6.63), second only to WorldShare Management Services (6.95).

These responses can be interpreted to mean that libraries still find some of the functionality of Alma lacking, but they see strengths in its management of electronic resources, weakness in the way it handles print materials, but have confidence in the company. Since academic libraries tend to spend the majority of their collections budgets on electronic resources and less on print, the relative levels of satisfaction between these two categories seems to reflect those priorities. Large academic libraries gave Ex Libris moderate satisfaction scores for Alma customer support (6.26) while they reflected highest customer loyalty (7.50), which might be interpreted as reflecting some difficulties with a relatively new product and confidence in its vision. Of the 383 libraries registered in libraries.org, 282 or 73.6 percent are academic, 8.9 percent are special, and 17.2 percent are other types of libraries.

Voyager

Voyager fell in the lower ranks of overall satisfaction by large academic libraries (5.93), and was given higher ratings for management of print (7.29) than electronic (4.04) resources. Scores were much better for its support by Ex Libris (6.64), second only to Aleph ((6.66). The percentage of libraries indicating that they are considering moving on from Voyager has sharply increased in recent years (2007-2014: 21.6%, 21.8%, 19.5%, 32.3%, 38.3%, 49.4%, 50.9%, 67.8%) with over two thirds now considering migration options. This high percentage coupled with the relatively strong company loyalty score given by large academic libraries currently using Voyager (6.54) provides a strong indicator toward Ex Libris Alma.

Aleph

Aleph earned top scores in the large academic library group in overall satisfaction (6. 81), for print functionality (7.81), but was not rated nearly as favorably for its management of electronic resources (4.42). Aleph received somewhat lower overall satisfaction by small academic libraries (6.42), reflecting its orientation as a product oriented to large and complex libraries. The percentage of libraries using Aleph considering moving to a new system continues to rise (2007-2014: 9.1%, 13.6%, 11.9%, 18.9%, 25.7%, 34.6%, 40.4%, 45.7%). Large libraries using Aleph gave Ex Libris high company loyalty scores (6.56). This year’s survey indicates that that many libraries using Aleph are looking for alternatives and that most indicate loyalty to Ex Libris.

OCLC

OCLC is a global membership organization which offers a wide variety of products and services to libraries worldwide. This year a total of 72 libraries currently using OCLC WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey, more than twice the 31 that responded last year, reflecting the increasing number of libraries implementing this product. OCLC markets WorldShare Management services to all types of libraries, though it has been implemented by more academic libraries than others. Of the 240 libraries using WorldShare Management Services registered in libraries.org, 182 or 75.8 percent are academic, 9 are public, 11 special, and 8 school ( current statistics ). The responses to this year’s survey approximately correspond to those proportions. OCLC received very strong company loyalty ratings from libraries using its WorldShare Management Services (7.59), which topped the charts in the medium-sized academic library group.

WorldShare Management Services

WorldShare Management Services earned top marks overall product satisfaction by mid-sized academic libraries (6.95), in management of electronic resources (6.85), product support (7.25), and company loyalty (7.75). The number of responses from large academic libraries using WorldShare fell below the threshold to appear in the survey result tables. Most of the responses were from academic libraries (59 out of 72).

For academic libraries of all sizes, WorldShare received top ratings (7.04) for its functionality for managing electronic resources and was best in the company loyalty rankings (7.59).

Among mid-sized academic libraries, WorldShare received a rating of 7.20 for its effectiveness with print resources, below all but Alma (6.88). We note that the spread of scores in this category is narrow (7.76 to 7.20), reflecting a smaller amount of differentiation. This same group gave WorldShare top ratings relative to the other products for its functionality in managing electronic resources (6.85).

Amlib

This year’s survey included 15 responses from libraries using Amlib, an integrated library system also supported by OCLC. Its ratings appeared on only a small number of statistics tables since the number of responses fall below the threshold. The product did appear in the tables that aggregated all responses for public libraries, receiving the lowest product functionality rating (5.00), and second lowest overall product satisfaction (5.21). Public libraries using Amlib gave an average company loyalty rating of 4.08, second lowest only to Axiell Aurora (3.64).

Innovative

Innovative was well represented in this year’s survey with 288 responses from libraries using Sierra, 215 from those using Millennium, 169 responses from libraries using Polaris, and 25 from libraries using Virtua. Innovative has undergone a number of changes in recent years, including its change in ownership in 2012) as well as recent acquisitions of Polaris and VTLS in 2014.

Innovative received relatively low company loyalty scores for large public libraries currently using Sierra (3.58) and from large academic libraries using Millennium (4.04), sharply down from 2013 (5.91) and 2011 (6.82). The scores are better when aggregated across all responses among library types: company loyalty by all academics using Millennium (5.39), by publics (6.72); loyalty to Sierra by all academics (5.90), by all publics (5.59), and loyalty to Polaris by all publics (7.43).

Sierra

Sierra has been implemented by all types of libraries. This year’s survey received responses from 281 libraries using Sierra, including 116 publics and 131 academics.

Sierra was given top ratings in overall product functionality (6.69) among large academic libraries. Among this group its print functionality (7.61) was rated quite positively; while its ratings for electronic resource management (6.13) was lower than that for print, it was strong relative to other products, second only to Alma (6.61). Mid-sized public libraries gave Sierra lower ratings than its competitors for product satisfaction (4.86).

Sierra also performed very well among mid-sized academic libraries. This group gave Sierra its top ratings by for its overall product functionality (6.74) and third highest for functionality for electronic resource management (6.17), much higher than Millennium (4.77).

In other categories, Sierra did not fare as well. It was given lowest overall satisfaction ratings among large publics (4.95), sharply down from the 6.56 given in 2013. Customer support ratings for Sierra by medium-sized public libraries plummeted from 6.64 given in 2012 down to 4.1. Sierra rated lowest in general product satisfaction in the large public library category (5.11), far below the company’s Polaris ILS which received 7.88. Mid-sized public libraries rated Innovative’s support for Sierra lower than any competing product (3.87), below the 5.77 rating this same group gave for the same company’s Innovative ILS.

Millennium

Millennium continues to have a large installed base, though numbers are declining as libraries move to new products, especially Innovative’s own Sierra. The product received positive ratings in several areas. In the category of functionality for managing electronic resources, mid-sized public libraries rated Millennium higher (5.58) than Sierra (3.87). Mid-sized academic libraries gave Millennium strong ratings for its effectiveness in managing print resources (7.45), second only to Aleph (7.55).

The product was rated more negatively in other areas. Among large academics, for example, Millennium received the worst score for general product satisfaction (5.00), declining for the last four years (2011: 7.00, 2012: 6.61, 2013: 6.23, 2014: 5.00). Ratings for Millennium support have dropped from 6.82 in 2010 to 5.95 in 2014 among the mid-sized publics. Large academics gave Millennium weak customer support ratings (4.73), compared to 5.88 for Sierra.

Loyalty by large academics is declining (2011: 6.82, 2012: 5.83, 2013: 5.91, 2014: 4.04).

Polaris

Polaris earned highest rankings by large public libraries in all the categories: general satisfaction (7.88), overall functionality (7.64), print functionality (8.20), management of electronic resources (6.92), product support (7.76), and company loyalty (7.24). In the large public library category, Polaris received top ratings for company loyalty (7.24), though only a fraction ahead of SirsiDynix among Symphony sites in this group (7.23).

In May 2014, Polaris was acquired by Innovative Interfaces. This year’s results reflect how libraries using this product perceive changes relative to that transition. Though given high marks relative to other competitors, the company loyalty scores given by large publics were sharply down since last year (8.59). The percentage of libraries using Polaris that indicate interest in migrating to a new system is up slightly this year (5.3%) compared to 2013 (0.7%). Relative to other products, Polaris continues to earn very strong ratings in all categories, but compared to previous years, scores have fallen.

Possible factors in the lower numbers include adoption by Polaris by ever larger libraries which tend not to give as positive ratings, the growth in its customer base, and the transition to ownership under Innovative interfaces. Many of the narrative comments express concern regarding the sale of the company.

Large public libraries have consistently given Polaris superlative ratings, with this year’s 7.76 only slightly down from the 8.08 received in 2010. Among medium-sized publics, Polaris customer support rankings have dipped a bit more in that period from 7.93 to 7.16.

Although Polaris receives very high ratings in the mid-sized and large public library groups, it is rated less well by small and very small public libraries. Very small publics rated its general product satisfaction (7.11), for example quite a bit lower than Apollo (8.51) which was designed specifically for this niche.

SirsiDynix

Three products offered by SirsiDynix appeared in this year’s survey, Symphony with 361 responses, 128 from Horizon libraries, and 46 from those using EOS.Web. Ratings have been steadily improving among libraries using these products in recent years.

Symphony

SirsiDynix Symphony has been implemented by many different types of libraries as shown by statistics from libraries.org. Responses this year included 182 public libraries and 111 academics. Symphony has seen steady and substantial improvements in its ratings since 2010. Among large public libraries, ratings in overall satisfaction climbed from 5.22 in 2010 through 7.05 this year; customer support improved dramatically from 5.00 in 2010 to 7.36 in 2014.

Symphony was given second highest ratings by large public libraries for general product satisfaction (7.00), overall product functionality (7.00), print functionality (7.26), customer support (7.30), and company loyalty (7.23). Ratings for its functionality for management of electronic resources (5.23) were also second highest relative to competitors, through lower in absolute terms relative to other categories. Symphony fell more in the middle ranks in responses given by mid-sized public libraries.

Among medium-sized public libraries SirsiDynix support ratings have improved dramatically from 5.02 in 2010 to 6.85 this year.

Horizon

Responses for Horizon this year came from 81 public libraries and 30 academics. Of these libraries, 54 or 42.19 percent indicate that they are considering moving to a new system. In most categories, Horizon placed in the middle and lower tiers. Although SirsiDynix continues support for the product, libraries using the product do not give it especially strong ratings. Responses related to customer support and company loyalty were more positive than those for categories of functionality.

Small academics rated Horizon relatively positively (6.73). These libraries gave Horizon very strong customer support ratings (7.47), with only Koha (7.64) and WorldShare Management Services (7.48) performing better. Among small academics, company loyalty scores by libraries running Horizon have improved dramatically, from 5.33 in 2012 to this year’s rating of 7.22. When aggregated across all academic libraries, company loyalty falls lower than competitors at 5.07.

EOS.Web

EOS.Web was acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013 and received responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. In almost all categories, ratings for EOS.Web have been declining since 2011, a year when this product received superlative scores. This year's rating of 7.60 for satisfaction of support and 7.58 of functionality for managing print resources reflect very strong performance.

The Library Corporation

The Library Corporation, working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 92 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 6 for libraries using Carl.X.

Library.Solution

Library.Solution performed best in the mid-sized public library arena. This group gave Library.Solution top rankings for support in (7.72), significantly better than the 6.47 received in 2010. Library.Solution was given second best ranking in its effectiveness for managing electronic resources (6.26) and third in overall product functionality (7.05). This product did not appear in the summary tables for very large or very small public libraries. Among small public libraries, Library.Solution was generally ranked in the middle tier. In overall product satisfaction, for example, small public libraries gave Library.Solution a rating of 6.90.

Carl.X

Carl.X is used primarily by large municipal libraries. With only 6 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Libraries using Carl.X gave the product very strong ratings in overall product satisfaction (6.67) and gave The Library Corporation exceptional scores in for product support (7.20) and company loyalty (7.00).

Biblionix

Biblionix, offers the Apollo ILS, designed specifically for small public libraries (see statistics from libraries.org. This year 73 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

Apollo

Apollo continues its superlative performance in the small public library arena. This product has received consistently exceptional performance since it first appeared on the survey in 2009. This year small public libraries gave Apollo top scores in general satisfaction (8.52), product functionality (8.29), print management (8.33), management of electronic resources (8.48), and company loyalty (8.81). Apollo also topped the charts in each of these categories in the very small public library category. Within the realm of small public libraries, Apollo has exceptionally happy customers.

Koha

Support providerResponsesGeneral Satisfaction
All Installations1947.47
ByWater Solutions1197.34
Independent537.67
LibLime266.52
Prosentient Systems78.00
Catalyst67.00
PTFS Europe66.83
Kobli 5--
Equinox3--
BibLibre3--
Calyx3--
Libriotech2--
Cineca1--
Interleaf Technology4--
Mill Run Technologies1--
Xercode1--

Koha, an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world. 194 libraries using Koha responded to this year's survey.

As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations.

Koha supported by ByWater Solutions received the top ranking for effectiveness in managing electronic resources by mid-sized public libraries (6.67). This group gave ByWater Solutions support excellent ratings for product support (7.42), second only to Library.Solution (7.72). Among small or very small public libraries, Koha as supported by ByWater Solutions was consistently ranked in third or fourth place. In the small academic library arena, Koha implemented independently received the best rating for overall product satisfaction (8.13) with Koha supported by ByWater Solutions in second place (7.44). Similar rankings were given for product functionality.

Book Systems, Inc.

The Atriuum ILS from Book Systems, Inc. finds use in school libraries and by very small public libraries. Ratings reflect very strong performance of Atriuum in both of these categories. Among very small public libraries, Atriuum ranked second in all categories behind Apollo. Atriuum has received steadily increasing scores for the last three years when the product began appearing on the survey. Concourse, also from Book Systems, did not receive as positive scores in the functionality categories, but did well for product support and company loyalty. Among schools, Atriuum was ranked very positively, though a notch below OPALS. School libraries gave Atriuum an average 7.97 in the overall product satisfaction category.

School Libraries

Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with around 70 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products. OPALS holds a fraction of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey. Only 81 school libraries using Destiny responded to this year’s survey compared to the 86 using OPALS. The libraries using Destiny also tend to be larger, with an average collection size of 155,840, than those using OPALS with an average collection size of 74,910. As in other categories, larger and more complex libraries tend to give lower scores than smaller ones. In the school library sector, there were not enough responses, however, to segregate responses according to size categories.

OPALS

Among school libraries the open source OPALS integrated library system earned top scores in all categories. OPALS is developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc.. Many school districts and BOCES provide support and services for libraries using OPALS. 129 libraries running OPALS responded to this year’s survey, 87 of which were from school libraries, 7 from small academics, 3 from publics, and 4 from special libraries. Turnout this year was weaker for OPALS compared to the 213 responses received last year and the ratings given in most categories were slightly lower.

Follett

Destiny from Follett School Solutions. the dominant library automation product used in school libraries received very respectable ratings in this year’s survey, though a notch below those given to OPALS. School libraries gave Destiny an average 7.86 rating in overall product satisfaction. Follett received strong company loyalty scores (7.76), though libraries seemed a bit less positive regarding product support (6.68).


Selected Statistical Tables

Emphasis on Peer Groups

Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

Public Libraries

Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 2 5 12 6 87.888 1.40
Symphony23 2 4 8 8 1 77.007 1.67
Horizon19 1 1 2 6 7 2 76.116 1.84
Sierra19 1 1 2 3 3 1 5 3 74.955 1.38
All Responses132 1 3 5 4 4 9 21 40 36 9 76.527 0.26

Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 4 6 10 5 87.648 1.40
Symphony23 1 5 9 7 1 77.007 1.46
Sierra19 2 1 3 2 2 7 1 1 75.636 1.38
Horizon19 1 2 3 2 2 8 1 75.536 1.61
All Responses132 2 2 6 10 8 18 47 29 10 76.547 0.35

Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 1 4 9 11 98.208 1.60
Symphony23 1 2 3 1 10 6 87.268 1.67
Horizon19 1 1 2 2 2 8 3 86.958 2.06
Sierra19 3 1 1 2 6 3 3 76.477 1.61
All Responses130 1 2 1 5 7 4 11 24 46 29 87.158 0.26

Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris24 2 3 4 5 6 4 86.927 0.82
Symphony22 1 2 3 3 5 8 75.236 1.28
Sierra19 1 1 4 5 1 3 2 2 44.634 0.92
Horizon19 1 2 5 2 2 5 2 23.323 0.92
All Responses130 1 8 11 12 15 18 20 28 12 5 75.186 0.26

Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 3 7 8 7 87.768 1.20
Symphony23 2 3 9 4 5 77.307 1.46
Horizon19 1 1 1 4 4 6 2 86.427 1.84
Sierra19 2 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 33.583 0.46
All Responses131 3 6 3 8 3 12 18 34 26 18 76.297 0.26

Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 1 2 1 3 3 6 9 97.248 1.20
Symphony22 4 2 5 7 4 87.238 1.71
Horizon19 2 4 2 1 5 5 86.638 1.84
Sierra19 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 4 94.894 0.69
All Responses131 9 5 3 3 8 14 11 20 26 32 96.297 0.09

Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 2 8 17 19 13 87.568 0.78
Spydus21 1 1 9 9 1 77.337 1.75
Koha -- ByWater Solutions12 1 2 2 2 5 97.088 2.60
Library.Solution19 2 1 2 5 7 2 87.057 1.84
Millennium26 2 4 12 6 2 76.857 1.37
Symphony66 2 1 1 5 12 30 14 1 76.627 0.86
Horizon37 1 1 1 3 8 5 8 6 4 56.166 0.82
Evergreen -- Equinox Software15 1 1 3 1 5 2 2 76.137 1.55
Sierra56 7 2 2 6 2 10 7 12 8 74.865 0.94
All Responses365 8 5 10 13 18 34 46 114 80 37 76.457 0.37

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 1 1 9 17 20 11 87.468 1.04
Spydus21 1 3 8 9 87.197 1.75
Library.Solution19 1 2 3 4 6 3 87.057 1.84
Millennium26 2 1 5 8 8 2 76.777 1.37
Symphony67 1 2 1 4 4 14 18 19 4 86.607 1.10
Koha -- ByWater Solutions12 2 1 1 3 4 1 86.427 2.31
Evergreen -- Equinox Software15 2 1 2 1 6 2 1 76.207 1.29
Horizon37 1 1 3 3 8 4 9 7 1 75.846 0.99
Sierra56 2 4 5 5 1 6 7 17 8 1 75.306 1.07
All Responses365 2 6 15 20 10 32 54 98 97 31 76.477 0.47

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 3 1 2 10 28 15 87.568 0.91
Spydus20 1 7 11 1 87.558 1.79
Library.Solution19 3 1 7 3 5 77.327 2.06
Millennium26 1 1 2 5 11 6 87.318 1.57
Koha -- ByWater Solutions12 1 1 3 4 3 87.258 2.31
Symphony67 1 1 2 1 1 8 13 30 10 87.218 1.10
Evergreen -- Equinox Software15 3 5 6 1 87.137 2.07
Horizon37 1 2 3 4 11 9 7 77.007 0.82
Sierra56 1 3 5 2 4 7 1 16 14 3 75.847 1.07
All Responses365 7 4 11 5 11 27 24 84 134 58 86.988 0.47

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions12 1 1 1 4 3 2 76.677 2.31
Library.Solution19 3 1 7 2 5 1 66.266 1.84
Polaris58 2 3 2 4 8 11 11 15 2 86.026 0.00
Spydus21 1 1 1 3 7 7 1 65.866 1.53
Millennium26 4 1 1 1 2 4 8 3 2 75.587 1.18
Symphony66 2 5 12 2 9 12 14 8 2 75.356 0.98
Horizon36 1 2 5 6 5 4 3 5 3 2 34.584 0.67
Evergreen -- Equinox Software14 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 54.505 1.07
Sierra53 5 5 6 5 9 6 5 7 5 44.094 0.96
All Responses358 13 17 27 38 30 44 59 67 47 16 75.226 0.42

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Library.Solution18 1 1 4 5 7 97.728 2.12
Koha -- ByWater Solutions12 1 1 1 1 3 5 97.428 2.60
Polaris58 1 2 2 3 5 11 21 13 87.168 1.18
Spydus21 1 2 12 6 76.957 1.53
Horizon37 1 4 5 12 13 2 86.927 0.82
Symphony66 1 1 2 2 2 3 9 18 19 9 86.777 0.86
Evergreen -- Equinox Software14 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 66.577 2.14
Millennium26 2 2 4 8 5 4 1 65.776 1.57
Sierra52 10 3 4 6 5 5 11 3 5 63.874 0.42
All Responses358 13 8 14 14 22 23 50 77 89 48 86.327 0.37

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Spydus21 1 1 6 7 6 87.678 1.75
Polaris59 1 3 4 5 12 16 18 97.428 1.04
Library.Solution19 3 2 7 7 87.428 1.84
Millennium25 1 1 2 4 4 6 7 96.968 1.40
Symphony66 1 1 1 1 4 7 14 13 13 11 66.597 0.86
Horizon37 2 1 2 2 5 3 10 5 7 76.277 0.82
Evergreen -- Equinox Software12 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 55.335 1.44
Sierra55 13 2 2 2 7 6 5 8 6 4 04.365 0.54
All Responses359 23 7 10 13 22 35 39 59 70 81 96.317 0.37

Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 2 6 13 98.529 1.96
Atriuum64 1 2 2 11 15 33 98.069 1.00
Polaris40 1 1 2 4 9 12 11 87.428 0.47
Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 1 1 2 7 9 4 87.338 1.84
Evergreen -- Equinox Software26 1 2 5 6 10 2 87.087 1.57
Symphony42 1 1 2 2 7 12 11 6 76.937 1.08
Library.Solution31 1 1 1 7 10 9 2 76.907 0.54
Destiny15 1 2 2 3 1 2 4 96.005 1.29
Sierra31 1 2 3 2 3 2 9 7 2 75.747 1.62
Horizon19 1 4 2 1 3 3 5 85.326 1.84
All Responses415 4 5 13 9 11 28 45 99 112 89 86.997 0.34

Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 2 9 10 98.298 1.96
Atriuum64 1 1 6 10 17 29 97.978 0.88
Polaris40 1 1 3 2 10 12 11 87.338 0.79
Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 1 1 3 8 6 5 77.257 1.84
Evergreen -- Equinox Software26 1 2 3 8 11 1 87.127 1.18
Library.Solution31 3 1 1 5 7 13 1 86.777 0.54
Symphony42 1 1 4 3 5 12 12 4 76.717 1.08
Sierra31 1 2 3 1 2 1 4 5 7 5 85.947 1.62
Destiny15 2 1 4 1 1 3 3 45.606 1.55
Horizon19 1 4 1 1 4 4 4 25.376 1.38
All Responses415 3 7 14 9 17 21 48 98 118 80 86.927 0.34

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 1 1 7 12 98.339 1.96
Atriuum64 1 3 3 8 15 34 98.119 1.13
Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 2 5 11 5 87.838 1.88
Evergreen -- Equinox Software25 1 1 7 11 5 87.648 1.40
Polaris38 1 1 2 3 6 12 13 97.588 0.81
Symphony42 1 1 1 2 7 7 14 9 87.218 1.23
Library.Solution30 2 1 5 7 11 4 87.208 0.73
Destiny15 1 1 1 2 3 4 3 86.407 1.81
Sierra30 1 1 5 1 3 7 7 5 76.277 1.64
Horizon19 1 1 2 3 4 2 4 2 65.686 1.84
All Responses408 3 5 3 11 16 16 45 71 130 108 87.278 0.45

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 2 7 12 98.489 1.96
Atriuum60 4 1 2 4 6 9 12 22 97.028 1.03
Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 1 4 6 4 7 2 86.757 1.84
Library.Solution30 1 1 1 2 8 7 7 3 66.477 0.55
Polaris37 1 4 3 3 9 7 5 5 66.146 0.49
Evergreen -- Equinox Software25 1 1 4 3 5 6 4 1 75.966 1.20
Symphony39 3 1 3 2 3 1 6 11 4 5 75.647 1.12
Sierra27 2 3 1 4 2 3 4 4 4 35.045 1.73
Destiny13 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 04.625 1.94
Horizon18 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 14.395 1.41
All Responses394 20 12 16 22 28 37 52 74 73 60 75.997 0.35

Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo20 1 3 16 98.559 2.01
Atriuum64 1 1 2 8 11 41 98.309 1.13
Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 4 6 3 11 97.888 1.84
Evergreen -- Equinox Software26 2 2 7 7 8 97.588 1.18
Library.Solution31 1 1 6 5 11 7 87.398 0.36
Polaris37 1 1 2 3 12 7 11 77.357 0.99
Symphony39 1 3 2 3 2 10 11 7 86.857 0.80
Destiny15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 96.278 1.29
Horizon19 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 35.476 1.61
Sierra31 4 3 3 1 3 3 8 4 2 74.906 1.62
All Responses405 7 9 10 10 12 26 39 71 93 128 97.078 0.30

Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 4 17 98.819 1.96
Atriuum63 1 1 1 3 4 5 7 41 98.029 1.13
Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 2 2 2 7 8 97.598 1.92
Evergreen -- Equinox Software25 1 1 4 5 7 7 87.328 1.20
Library.Solution30 2 2 1 5 8 6 6 76.777 0.18
Polaris38 2 1 1 3 7 8 8 8 76.747 0.97
Symphony38 1 2 5 3 4 6 11 6 86.587 0.81
Destiny15 2 1 2 1 3 4 2 85.677 1.81
Sierra27 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 6 3 5 75.377 1.73
Horizon18 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 1 84.785 1.41
All Responses396 19 12 6 12 20 32 38 55 75 127 96.718 0.20

Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo51 1 4 13 33 98.519 1.12
Atriuum105 1 2 5 16 34 47 98.108 0.78
Concourse21 1 1 2 2 7 8 97.768 1.53
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 3 3 6 11 8 87.588 1.26
Symphony35 2 7 10 9 7 77.347 1.01
Polaris18 2 3 6 5 2 77.117 1.18
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 3 3 4 2 5 97.007 1.94
AGent VERSO29 1 1 1 5 4 6 7 4 86.417 1.11
Destiny16 3 3 2 6 2 75.317 0.75
All Responses455 3 2 5 9 18 27 48 89 114 140 97.328 0.33

Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo51 1 5 23 22 88.278 1.12
Atriuum104 2 10 19 33 40 97.958 0.88
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 1 3 7 10 9 87.658 1.26
Concourse21 1 4 2 8 6 87.628 1.31
Symphony35 1 7 10 11 6 87.407 1.01
Polaris18 1 3 6 6 2 77.287 1.41
AGent VERSO31 1 1 1 3 5 3 14 3 86.878 1.08
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 86.657 2.18
Destiny16 3 3 1 2 4 3 75.256 0.75
All Responses455 2 2 11 10 13 23 54 93 136 111 87.228 0.33

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo51 2 1 12 36 98.619 1.12
Atriuum104 1 1 3 5 16 30 48 98.028 0.88
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 3 2 4 9 13 97.878 1.26
Concourse21 1 2 4 6 8 97.628 1.53
Symphony35 1 1 6 8 12 7 87.318 1.18
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 2 9 5 77.297 1.70
Polaris18 2 2 6 5 3 77.287 1.18
AGent VERSO31 1 4 3 4 13 3 3 76.397 1.26
Destiny16 2 1 2 2 6 2 1 76.007 1.25
All Responses454 5 3 6 7 16 21 42 90 115 149 97.378 0.33

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo48 1 2 2 3 14 26 98.199 1.15
Atriuum99 5 2 3 13 9 11 18 38 97.078 0.50
Symphony34 6 4 12 6 6 77.067 1.20
Polaris18 1 4 2 7 2 2 76.617 1.18
Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 1 1 1 4 2 6 9 4 86.557 1.11
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 4 1 3 3 1 4 46.126 1.70
AGent VERSO24 3 4 5 1 6 2 3 75.506 0.82
Destiny15 2 2 1 1 2 5 2 74.676 0.77
Concourse20 8 1 1 2 1 4 3 04.105 0.00
All Responses428 32 9 6 13 26 49 33 75 81 104 96.357 0.29

Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo51 1 1 12 37 98.679 1.12
Atriuum104 1 1 3 4 9 26 60 98.209 0.88
Concourse21 1 1 2 6 11 98.059 1.75
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 2 3 5 7 14 97.908 1.44
Symphony33 4 5 4 8 12 97.588 1.04
AGent VERSO31 1 1 1 2 7 13 6 87.238 1.26
Polaris18 3 1 5 4 5 77.228 1.89
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 2 1 7 4 2 77.007 1.70
Destiny15 1 1 2 3 3 4 1 86.007 1.03
All Responses450 9 2 7 11 16 23 28 67 100 187 97.448 0.38

Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo50 1 2 8 39 98.669 1.27
Atriuum102 2 1 1 3 3 9 8 20 55 97.809 0.79
Concourse21 1 1 2 2 4 11 97.489 1.09
Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 1 4 1 3 1 6 12 97.108 1.11
Symphony35 1 3 5 2 6 8 10 97.008 1.01
AGent VERSO30 2 2 2 1 5 12 6 86.638 1.10
Evergreen -- Equinox Software15 4 2 1 3 2 3 46.407 1.29
Polaris18 2 1 1 3 3 5 3 86.397 1.89
Destiny16 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 14.885 0.25
All Responses444 21 12 7 11 34 26 32 43 87 171 96.888 0.28

All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo73 1 6 19 47 98.529 0.94
Atriuum181 1 1 4 7 32 52 84 98.078 0.59
Concourse22 1 1 2 2 7 9 97.828 1.49
Polaris142 1 1 6 17 37 48 32 87.528 0.50
Koha -- ByWater Solutions72 1 1 7 6 16 24 17 87.368 1.06
Spydus35 1 3 15 14 2 77.347 1.18
Library.Solution64 1 4 3 9 20 17 10 77.097 1.13
Absys.Net22 4 3 8 5 2 76.917 1.49
Symphony176 2 1 4 5 10 33 62 44 15 76.857 0.53
Libero12 1 1 2 2 5 1 86.838 1.15
Evergreen -- Equinox Software64 2 1 7 3 10 16 15 10 76.757 0.75
Millennium40 3 1 7 16 11 2 76.757 1.11
Koha -- LibLime12 1 2 1 5 1 2 76.587 2.02
Axiell Aurora14 2 1 3 5 3 76.437 1.87
ALEPH 50015 3 2 1 2 1 6 96.407 2.07
LibraryWorld12 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 36.257 1.73
AGent VERSO44 2 2 2 7 6 9 10 6 86.237 0.90
Horizon80 4 5 1 6 14 15 18 13 4 75.846 0.56
Destiny31 4 5 2 3 2 7 4 4 75.656 0.90
Amlib14 5 4 2 3 45.215 1.07
Sierra113 9 5 7 11 4 17 10 28 19 3 75.206 0.66
All Responses1421 18 16 34 37 54 103 168 358 350 283 76.897 0.19

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo73 1 2 5 32 33 98.298 0.94
Atriuum180 1 3 17 32 54 73 97.968 0.67
Concourse22 1 4 2 8 7 87.688 1.28
Polaris142 1 1 1 5 18 39 48 29 87.438 0.67
Koha -- ByWater Solutions72 3 1 4 8 19 22 15 87.258 1.06
Spydus35 1 7 13 14 87.147 1.18
Absys.Net22 3 2 8 7 2 77.147 1.49
Library.Solution64 4 2 4 8 15 22 9 87.037 1.13
Libero12 1 1 1 3 6 86.928 1.44
Symphony177 1 3 4 9 11 32 51 51 15 76.797 0.68
Millennium40 2 3 1 8 12 10 4 76.727 1.11
AGent VERSO46 1 3 1 1 5 5 8 17 5 86.657 1.18
Evergreen -- Equinox Software64 1 3 5 6 8 17 19 5 86.647 0.63
Axiell Aurora14 1 2 2 7 2 76.437 1.87
ALEPH 50015 4 1 1 2 7 96.407 2.32
Koha -- LibLime12 1 2 3 6 76.087 2.02
LibraryWorld12 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 86.007 1.73
Sierra113 3 7 10 7 6 10 14 30 18 8 75.596 0.75
Horizon80 3 6 5 7 13 12 21 12 1 75.596 0.67
Destiny31 2 4 3 4 1 3 5 6 3 85.426 1.08
Amlib14 2 1 3 1 3 4 75.006 1.07
All Responses1421 8 18 45 47 51 90 183 351 389 239 86.847 0.24

Academic Libraries

Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50032 1 3 5 16 6 1 76.817 1.06
Alma19 1 2 4 8 4 76.537 1.61
Sierra35 1 1 2 4 9 11 6 1 76.317 0.85
Symphony19 3 1 3 2 6 3 1 76.057 2.06
Voyager28 1 2 1 3 11 7 3 65.936 1.13
Millennium26 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 45.005 1.37
All Responses182 8 10 13 21 38 57 31 4 76.127 0.44

Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra35 3 7 4 9 8 4 76.697 0.85
ALEPH 50032 3 4 9 11 2 3 76.447 0.71
Symphony19 2 2 2 1 2 4 5 1 85.897 2.06
Alma19 1 3 10 5 65.846 1.38
Voyager27 1 1 3 2 6 6 7 1 75.306 0.96
Millennium25 1 1 4 1 6 5 3 4 55.285 1.40
All Responses180 3 5 12 16 27 39 47 23 8 75.936 0.37

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50032 13 12 7 77.818 1.24
Sierra35 2 1 2 7 13 10 87.668 1.35
Symphony18 4 4 6 4 87.568 2.12
Voyager28 1 1 4 7 12 3 87.298 1.32
Millennium26 1 2 4 7 10 2 87.127 1.37
Alma19 1 2 6 6 4 66.537 1.38
All Responses179 1 4 6 25 48 68 27 87.398 0.52

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma19 1 2 5 4 6 1 86.687 1.61
Sierra34 3 6 2 11 4 7 1 65.946 0.69
ALEPH 50031 1 1 3 4 5 9 5 1 2 54.425 0.18
Symphony19 1 2 4 2 2 4 3 1 24.264 2.06
Millennium26 3 4 2 6 6 2 2 1 44.044 0.98
Voyager27 2 8 3 3 2 5 3 1 24.044 0.58
All Responses179 4 11 23 15 22 24 35 16 24 5 64.855 0.22

Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50032 1 1 6 4 10 7 3 76.667 1.24
Voyager28 2 1 3 6 5 9 2 86.647 1.13
Symphony19 1 1 3 4 2 6 2 86.637 2.06
Alma19 1 2 6 7 3 76.267 1.38
Sierra34 1 3 3 3 10 9 5 65.886 1.20
Millennium26 1 2 3 2 3 4 4 4 2 1 54.735 1.37
All Responses180 3 3 6 8 9 23 36 44 38 10 76.167 0.45

Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma18 1 1 5 8 3 87.508 1.65
ALEPH 50032 1 1 2 4 7 7 2 8 96.567 1.24
Voyager28 1 1 2 6 4 3 3 8 96.547 0.94
Sierra34 2 4 2 7 3 5 8 3 85.976 1.03
Symphony19 2 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 35.265 2.06
Millennium26 3 1 3 2 6 5 2 2 1 1 44.044 1.37
All Responses178 8 2 8 12 15 30 18 30 26 29 55.906 0.37

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services20 1 1 3 8 7 76.957 1.79
Alma16 1 5 6 4 76.637 1.75
Symphony34 1 2 3 2 10 10 3 3 66.216 1.54
Sierra45 1 1 5 6 11 13 5 3 76.166 0.75
ALEPH 50038 3 2 1 4 9 13 5 1 76.057 1.46
Millennium71 1 1 5 6 4 6 14 19 14 1 75.826 0.83
Voyager39 3 3 5 5 9 7 7 65.626 1.12
All Responses313 2 1 14 16 24 32 67 96 50 11 76.097 0.28

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra46 1 1 2 1 4 6 10 18 3 86.747 1.03
Alma16 1 1 6 5 3 66.507 1.50
Symphony34 2 6 9 11 3 3 76.417 1.54
WorldShare Management Services20 1 4 3 11 1 76.357 1.57
ALEPH 50038 2 3 2 2 10 11 8 76.117 1.30
Millennium71 2 3 8 2 12 8 19 14 3 75.927 0.95
Voyager39 1 2 5 4 6 9 5 7 65.416 1.28
All Responses314 4 11 23 17 45 57 86 61 10 76.087 0.28

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50038 1 1 4 8 18 6 87.558 1.30
Millennium71 3 1 2 7 13 28 17 87.458 0.95
Symphony34 1 4 14 10 5 77.417 1.54
Sierra46 1 1 2 6 9 18 9 87.398 1.03
Voyager38 3 8 7 18 2 87.218 1.30
WorldShare Management Services20 1 1 2 5 11 87.208 1.57
Alma16 1 6 1 7 1 86.888 1.50
All Responses311 5 2 6 12 40 76 126 44 87.328 0.40

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services20 3 3 9 4 1 76.857 1.79
Alma16 1 2 5 3 4 1 66.567 1.75
Sierra46 1 1 2 2 7 9 16 6 2 76.177 1.03
Millennium70 3 7 7 4 6 13 7 15 7 1 74.775 0.84
Symphony34 6 6 1 2 4 7 4 3 1 64.475 1.03
ALEPH 50037 2 2 4 3 5 9 5 6 1 54.435 1.15
Voyager39 1 5 4 6 4 4 9 4 2 64.234 0.96
All Responses311 8 26 28 19 27 47 52 65 32 7 75.046 0.40

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services20 1 2 2 6 4 5 77.257 1.57
Symphony34 1 1 2 9 7 8 6 66.977 1.54
Alma16 1 1 1 2 8 1 2 76.507 1.75
ALEPH 50038 2 1 6 4 2 14 8 1 76.167 1.46
Voyager39 3 2 3 9 5 10 4 3 75.856 0.32
Sierra44 2 3 3 5 6 5 12 5 3 75.646 0.60
Millennium70 1 5 6 8 7 7 18 16 2 75.577 0.96
All Responses311 1 8 18 16 20 37 36 89 62 24 76.147 0.28

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services20 2 3 9 6 87.758 1.79
Alma16 1 2 1 5 3 4 76.947 1.75
ALEPH 50038 2 1 1 2 2 5 11 6 8 76.637 1.46
Sierra46 3 1 1 3 2 6 9 8 6 7 65.896 1.33
Millennium70 4 4 3 4 6 9 5 12 14 9 85.697 0.84
Voyager39 4 1 1 4 11 2 3 10 3 55.545 0.64
Symphony33 1 3 5 2 2 2 6 4 3 5 65.156 1.57
All Responses311 17 11 12 16 19 40 34 54 61 47 85.957 0.45

Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent16 2 1 6 7 98.138 1.50
Koha -- ByWater Solutions18 1 1 1 5 5 5 77.448 1.18
WorldShare Management Services29 1 3 14 7 4 77.177 1.30
Horizon15 3 2 6 4 76.737 1.81
Sierra46 1 3 2 5 6 18 8 3 76.467 1.03
Millennium44 1 2 1 5 11 13 9 2 76.437 1.06
ALEPH 50031 4 1 3 4 11 5 3 76.427 1.08
Symphony56 1 4 6 3 4 4 23 9 2 75.957 1.07
Voyager59 2 3 1 4 6 7 12 14 8 2 75.566 0.91
All Responses417 6 4 9 26 21 39 54 130 86 42 76.427 0.29

Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent16 1 1 2 3 3 6 97.258 0.00
Koha -- ByWater Solutions18 1 1 3 6 3 4 77.117 1.18
ALEPH 50031 2 1 8 6 10 4 87.007 1.08
Sierra46 2 1 7 6 14 11 5 76.787 1.18
WorldShare Management Services29 1 2 7 12 4 3 76.727 1.30
Millennium43 1 2 9 8 9 9 5 56.607 1.22
Horizon15 1 3 3 4 4 76.477 1.81
Symphony56 1 3 3 3 2 11 23 8 2 76.187 1.20
Voyager59 3 3 4 9 6 13 10 8 3 65.536 1.04
All Responses415 3 4 10 18 23 36 72 120 82 47 76.517 0.00

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent15 1 2 6 6 88.078 1.29
Sierra46 1 3 3 7 22 10 87.578 1.18
Koha -- ByWater Solutions18 1 3 2 7 5 87.568 1.41
Millennium44 1 2 4 15 12 10 77.488 1.21
WorldShare Management Services29 1 2 1 7 14 4 87.348 1.49
ALEPH 50031 1 1 5 8 12 4 87.328 1.26
Horizon15 3 1 2 8 1 87.208 2.07
Symphony56 1 1 1 6 4 17 18 8 87.077 1.20
Voyager59 3 3 3 11 16 16 7 76.867 1.04
All Responses415 3 1 9 13 22 44 101 147 75 87.268 0.25

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services28 1 2 4 7 8 6 87.188 0.94
Koha -- Independent15 2 3 5 1 4 76.077 1.03
Sierra46 3 2 1 2 3 5 14 6 8 2 65.546 0.88
Koha -- ByWater Solutions18 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 75.446 0.94
Millennium43 1 4 3 9 3 9 8 6 45.266 0.61
ALEPH 50031 1 1 1 3 5 8 4 4 1 3 55.135 0.72
Symphony56 5 2 2 8 4 5 15 8 7 64.886 1.07
Horizon15 2 1 3 4 4 1 54.335 1.55
Voyager58 5 8 8 7 7 6 6 8 2 1 13.794 0.39
All Responses410 29 18 22 33 43 49 67 70 52 27 75.196 0.20

Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent14 1 1 1 2 2 7 97.649 0.80
WorldShare Management Services29 1 1 3 7 10 7 87.488 1.30
Horizon15 3 3 5 4 87.478 2.07
Koha -- ByWater Solutions18 1 1 2 3 4 7 97.288 1.18
Sierra45 1 1 1 3 3 7 11 12 6 86.697 0.60
ALEPH 50030 1 1 2 1 3 5 6 5 6 76.437 1.10
Symphony56 1 2 2 1 4 4 8 15 15 4 76.327 1.07
Millennium44 1 1 4 2 4 6 14 11 1 76.237 0.90
Voyager58 1 3 1 3 7 9 12 13 5 4 75.626 0.79
All Responses411 5 9 9 19 27 34 52 94 88 74 76.577 0.15

Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services29 1 1 2 7 6 12 97.668 1.30
Koha -- ByWater Solutions18 1 1 3 1 2 10 97.229 0.94
Horizon15 1 2 2 3 5 2 86.877 2.07
ALEPH 50031 2 2 1 3 3 1 8 4 7 76.237 1.26
Sierra45 3 5 2 6 2 4 8 4 11 95.807 0.60
Millennium44 3 3 2 1 4 4 3 11 7 6 75.707 0.90
Symphony53 5 3 3 4 1 6 6 7 10 8 85.516 1.24
Voyager59 5 4 6 1 4 6 6 15 7 5 75.206 0.91
All Responses404 27 15 27 12 29 35 31 71 62 95 96.017 0.10

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent24 1 1 2 4 7 9 97.758 1.22
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 1 1 5 6 5 87.478 1.15
WorldShare Management Services58 1 1 1 1 2 6 25 17 4 76.937 1.05
Alma40 2 4 10 15 9 76.537 1.11
ALEPH 500102 3 6 3 10 18 41 16 5 76.417 0.59
Sierra127 1 2 5 9 15 26 43 19 7 76.317 0.62
Symphony110 1 6 11 7 9 16 39 15 6 76.017 0.76
Millennium143 1 2 8 11 10 15 32 35 26 3 75.866 0.59
Virtua14 1 2 3 3 4 1 85.867 0.80
Alto12 1 1 3 1 6 75.837 0.87
Horizon30 2 1 4 6 5 8 4 75.706 1.28
Voyager126 2 3 5 9 12 15 32 28 18 2 65.666 0.62
All Responses927 8 5 32 53 60 92 162 287 169 59 76.257 0.20

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent24 1 1 2 3 4 5 8 97.178 0.00
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 1 3 7 3 4 77.117 1.15
Sierra128 1 1 4 5 18 16 34 37 12 86.747 0.71
WorldShare Management Services57 1 1 3 6 10 26 7 3 76.497 0.93
ALEPH 500102 2 5 5 7 27 29 20 7 76.497 0.40
Symphony110 1 5 8 5 9 22 38 16 6 76.177 0.86
Alma40 1 2 5 16 12 4 66.156 0.95
Virtua14 1 1 2 1 6 3 76.077 1.87
Millennium141 3 4 13 5 27 22 32 27 8 76.026 0.67
Voyager125 5 6 12 15 18 28 22 16 3 65.446 0.72
Horizon30 3 8 6 5 4 4 45.375 1.28
Alto12 2 1 4 2 2 1 55.085 0.58
All Responses923 3 11 26 54 57 110 170 258 167 67 76.257 0.00

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent22 1 1 4 9 7 87.828 1.07
ALEPH 500102 2 2 9 30 42 17 87.568 0.69
Sierra128 1 1 6 3 11 23 54 29 87.538 0.71
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 3 3 7 5 87.538 1.38
Virtua13 1 1 3 7 1 87.468 2.22
Millennium143 3 1 2 6 15 35 52 29 87.418 0.67
Alto12 8 4 77.337 2.02
WorldShare Management Services56 1 1 3 5 14 28 4 87.278 0.94
Symphony109 1 1 1 7 12 36 34 17 77.267 0.86
Voyager125 4 3 7 23 30 46 12 87.067 0.72
Horizon30 1 2 3 4 7 11 2 86.837 1.46
Alma40 1 1 3 14 7 12 2 66.707 0.95
All Responses919 3 1 5 12 24 40 109 231 346 148 87.318 0.16

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services56 1 1 5 7 18 17 7 77.047 1.07
Alma40 1 1 4 11 9 12 2 86.707 1.11
Koha -- Independent23 2 1 5 1 6 4 4 76.007 0.83
Sierra127 3 3 2 7 11 14 35 26 21 5 65.886 0.53
Virtua13 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 85.546 1.39
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 75.536 0.92
Millennium141 4 11 15 9 21 23 18 25 14 1 74.765 0.59
ALEPH 500100 4 4 8 10 15 26 14 12 4 3 54.675 0.10
Symphony110 6 10 12 12 8 9 26 12 13 2 64.635 0.76
Voyager124 6 15 20 16 14 12 20 15 4 2 23.984 0.54
Alto12 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 53.584 0.00
Horizon30 3 5 3 2 7 4 5 1 43.434 1.10
All Responses913 42 56 73 69 93 123 156 152 110 39 65.076 0.13

All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent22 1 1 2 2 3 5 8 97.368 0.64
WorldShare Management Services57 2 1 3 6 15 17 13 87.328 0.93
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 1 2 4 4 7 97.268 1.15
Alto12 1 2 1 4 4 76.677 1.15
Symphony110 1 2 3 2 6 9 21 25 29 12 86.587 0.76
Horizon30 1 1 1 2 4 9 8 4 76.577 1.46
ALEPH 500101 1 4 3 8 13 11 30 20 11 76.437 0.70
Alma40 1 1 1 4 8 18 5 2 76.427 1.11
Sierra124 1 3 4 7 11 12 22 33 22 9 76.107 0.36
Voyager125 1 3 4 7 11 21 23 28 18 9 75.926 0.18
Millennium141 2 8 10 14 5 15 17 37 29 4 75.636 0.67
Virtua13 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 75.316 1.11
All Responses915 9 20 33 43 57 94 125 232 190 112 76.367 0.10

All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services58 1 1 2 1 3 13 17 20 97.598 1.05
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 1 3 1 2 11 97.329 0.92
Alma39 1 2 4 1 10 13 8 87.188 1.12
Koha -- Independent16 1 1 2 1 2 4 5 96.818 0.50
ALEPH 500102 1 4 3 3 7 9 13 26 12 24 76.517 0.69
Sierra126 6 1 8 9 10 15 16 21 19 21 75.906 0.36
Alto12 3 1 3 3 2 35.756 0.87
Voyager126 9 5 7 3 10 23 12 21 20 16 55.606 0.36
Millennium142 10 8 8 7 16 19 11 25 22 16 75.396 0.59
Virtua12 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 95.336 1.15
Symphony106 8 6 8 11 4 11 13 15 14 16 95.336 0.87
Horizon30 3 1 3 1 3 5 2 5 5 2 55.075 1.46
All Responses907 52 28 47 41 65 107 85 157 152 173 95.987 0.07

School Libraries

School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2014)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS86 1 2 2 4 11 66 98.529 0.65
Atriuum34 1 2 7 11 13 97.978 1.20
Destiny81 1 1 7 14 34 24 87.868 1.00
Library.Solution12 2 3 2 5 97.678 1.44
Alexandria13 2 2 4 1 4 76.627 2.22
All Responses277 1 3 1 2 6 11 17 42 77 117 97.788 0.18

School Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: School) (2014)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS86 1 1 1 4 6 17 56 98.359 0.65
Destiny81 1 1 5 15 35 24 87.888 1.00
Atriuum35 1 4 6 13 11 87.838 1.18
Alexandria13 2 2 4 1 4 76.627 2.50
All Responses276 2 4 2 4 10 20 44 86 104 97.738 0.12

School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2014)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS86 1 1 1 2 4 10 67 98.559 0.65
Destiny81 2 3 9 32 35 98.178 1.00
Atriuum35 1 2 3 15 14 88.118 1.18
Library.Solution12 5 1 6 98.089 2.02
Alexandria13 1 1 2 3 6 97.318 2.50
All Responses278 2 1 3 1 4 8 11 29 79 140 98.019 0.12

School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2014)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS71 1 4 2 3 13 24 24 87.668 0.71
Atriuum34 1 1 4 2 3 14 9 87.418 1.20
Library.Solution12 1 3 4 3 1 76.757 0.58
Destiny79 2 2 4 11 12 15 23 10 86.687 0.90
Alexandria12 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 75.507 2.02
All Responses257 7 3 7 3 12 24 25 49 76 51 86.827 0.12

School Libraries: Company Loyalty (2014)

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2014)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS86 1 1 1 1 4 8 70 98.529 0.75
Destiny78 1 2 3 4 2 10 15 41 97.769 1.02
Atriuum34 1 1 3 4 2 9 14 97.448 0.86
Alexandria13 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 04.383 0.00
All Responses271 12 5 4 2 7 10 13 24 45 149 97.549 0.43


An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


ILS Turnover Reports

Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2014 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2010 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2014 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


Details about The Survey

The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

  • How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
  • How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
  • How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
  • Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
  • How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
  • How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

view automation survey

Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the lib-web-cats directory of libraries. Each entry in lib-web-cats indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in lib-web-cats and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

The link between the lib-web-cats entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from lib-web-cats.

A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB, PUBLIB, and NGC4LIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in lib-web-cats, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

Statistics

To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

  • Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
  • A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
  • The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
  • The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
  • The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
  • The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

  • Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
  • Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.

[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


Caveat

As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.