Library Technology Guides

Blog content

Blog Posts from Library Technology Guides


GuidePosts

Perspective and commentary by Marshall Breeding

subscribe to GuidePosts via RSS


Perceptions 2018: An International Survey of Library Automation

Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
Apollo led in all categories for very small public libraries and for all small public libraries except for electronic resource management. Apollo has been very well received by small public libraries and the narrative comments given are overwhelmingly positive.
ByWater Solutions, received top scores for its support for Koha from mid-sized public libraries in general satisfaction, ILS support, and company loyalty. Among Small Public Libraries, ByWater Solutions received top ratings for satisfaction with managing print resources. Koha with support from ByWater Solutions also received generally positive ratings from small academic libraries, though it didnít receive top scores. It is notable that Koha with support from ByWater Solutions has been implemented by both academic and public libraries and receives generally positive ratings in these diverse libraries contrary to the trend toward specialization by library type.
Symphony from SirsiDynix, for the second year in a row, received top scores among large public libraries and large academic libraries for customer support. It is notable that even through Symphony receives weaker marks by large academic libraries in categories related to functionality, SirsiDynix receives very positive ratings for its support services.
Polaris received top rankings among large public libraries for general satisfaction, overall functionality, print resource management, electronic resource management, and company loyalty; they ranked Innovative's support servicdes less positively.
Alma from Ex Libris continues to be evaluated as the top performer among large and mid-sized academic libraries for general ILS satisfaction, overall functionality, end effectiveness in managing electronic resources. Alma receives weaker scores for its management of print resources. For large and mid-sized academic libraries, Ex Libris received top company loyalty scores for its three products: Alma, Aleph, and Voyager.
OPALS, an open source ILS developed by MediaFlex, received highest scores in all categories among school and small academic libraries. The narrative comments voiced unanimous support for the capabilities of the software and especially for the implementation and support services.

I have posted the results the twelfth annual survey of data collected on how libraries rate their current integrated library system, the company involved, and the quality of customer support. Perceptions 2018: an international survey of library automation gives the general conclusions and presents all the statistical results derived from the survey. As usual, some of the most interesting and valuable information can be found in the comments offered by responders.

"Several themes are evident in the last few editions of the perceptions survey. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Conventional integrated library systems dominate public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also favored proprietary ILS products. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal interesting patterns regarding the newer generation of library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are perceived as less capable for managing print resources than legacy ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores--with little differentiation among question categories--to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need."

Just as I did for the previous editions survey, I created an interactive tool for viewing the statistical summaries and comments. The main tables in the article show statistics only for those products that had more than 15 survey responses. You can use the ILS Product Report to view the statistics on any of the products mentioned in the survey and to read the comments about that system, even if the number of responses did not meet the threshold. The comments that display have been edited to remove any text that identifies the individual or institution, preserving the anonymity of the responders. The narrative data in the comments largely corroborate the statistical responses and makes for interesting reading.

Feb 11, 2019 16:59:47
Link to Posting:

Login or register to leave a comment.



Profile


Photo of Marshall Breeding author of

Name: Marshall Breeding

Title: Publisher

Organization: Library Technology Guides

Archive

Feb 2019 (1 post)
Nov 2018 (1 post)
May 2018 (1 post)
Mar 2018 (1 post)
Nov 2017 (2 posts)
May 2017 (1 post)
Jan 2017 (1 post)
Nov 2016 (1 post)
Oct 2016 (1 post)
Jul 2016 (1 post)
Mar 2016 (1 post)
Feb 2016 (1 post)
Nov 2015 (1 post)
May 2015 (3 posts)
Apr 2015 (1 post)
Feb 2015 (2 posts)
Jan 2015 (1 post)
Oct 2014 (2 posts)
Aug 2014 (1 post)
Jul 2014 (3 posts)
Jun 2014 (1 post)
Apr 2014 (1 post)
Mar 2014 (1 post)
Feb 2014 (1 post)
Dec 2013 (1 post)
Nov 2013 (3 posts)
Aug 2013 (2 posts)
Jun 2013 (1 post)
Apr 2013 (1 post)
Jan 2013 (2 posts)
Dec 2012 (1 post)
Nov 2012 (1 post)
Oct 2012 (1 post)
Sep 2012 (1 post)
Aug 2012 (1 post)
Jun 2012 (2 posts)
May 2012 (3 posts)
Mar 2012 (1 post)
Feb 2012 (1 post)
Jan 2012 (2 posts)
Dec 2011 (3 posts)
Nov 2011 (3 posts)
Oct 2011 (1 post)
Aug 2011 (1 post)
Jul 2011 (1 post)
May 2011 (1 post)
Apr 2011 (1 post)
Mar 2011 (3 posts)
Jan 2011 (1 post)
Dec 2010 (2 posts)
Nov 2010 (2 posts)
Sep 2010 (1 post)
Aug 2010 (2 posts)
Jul 2010 (1 post)
Jun 2010 (2 posts)
May 2010 (1 post)
Mar 2010 (2 posts)
Feb 2010 (1 post)
Jan 2010 (3 posts)
Dec 2009 (2 posts)
Nov 2009 (2 posts)
Oct 2009 (3 posts)
Sep 2009 (2 posts)
Aug 2009 (1 post)
Jul 2009 (1 post)
Jun 2009 (1 post)
May 2009 (1 post)
Apr 2009 (2 posts)
Mar 2009 (1 post)
Feb 2009 (1 post)
Jan 2009 (2 posts)
Dec 2008 (1 post)
Oct 2008 (2 posts)
Sep 2008 (2 posts)
Aug 2008 (5 posts)
Jul 2008 (1 post)
Jun 2008 (4 posts)
May 2008 (2 posts)
Apr 2008 (3 posts)
Mar 2008 (2 posts)
Feb 2008 (2 posts)
Jan 2008 (2 posts)
Dec 2007 (2 posts)
Nov 2007 (3 posts)
Oct 2007 (3 posts)
Sep 2007 (1 post)
Aug 2007 (3 posts)
Jul 2007 (1 post)