Statistical Report for Polaris
2013 Survey Results |
2012 Survey Results |
2011 Survey Results |
2010 Survey Results |
2009 Survey Results |
2008 Survey Results |
2007 Survey Results |
Product: Polaris |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 138 |
| | | 1 | | 9 | 10 | 34 | 49 | 35 | 8 | 7.63 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 138 |
| | | 3 | | 6 | 12 | 36 | 51 | 30 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 |
Print Functionality | 136 |
2 | | | 2 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 19 | 52 | 44 | 8 | 7.65 | 8 |
Electronic Functionality | 136 |
3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 19 | 22 | 22 | 36 | 14 | 8 | 6.28 | 7 |
Company Satisfaction | 136 |
| | 1 | | 1 | 11 | 7 | 27 | 46 | 43 | 8 | 7.70 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 137 |
| | | 3 | 2 | 11 | 9 | 30 | 41 | 41 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 135 |
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 32 | 15 | 22 | 27 | 31 | 5 | 6.83 | 7 |
Company Loyalty | 137 |
2 | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 23 | 29 | 60 | 9 | 7.62 | 8 |
Open Source Interest | 134 |
60 | 18 | 20 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 5 | | 2 | 0 | 1.78 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 143 |
1 | 0.70% |
Considering new Interface | 143 |
15 | 10.49% |
System Installed on time? | 143 |
131 | 91.61% |
Average Collection size: |
| 532870 |
Type | Count |
Public | 118 |
Academic | 11 |
School | 1 |
Consortia | 0 |
Special | 1 |
|
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 57 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 42 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 18 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 16 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
|
|
Product: Polaris |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 152 |
| | | | 2 | 4 | 8 | 29 | 64 | 45 | 8 | 7.87 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 152 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 54 | 51 | 33 | 7 | 7.62 | 8 |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.62 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.62 | |
Company Satisfaction | 151 |
| | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 17 | 60 | 54 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 152 |
1 | | 3 | | 2 | 5 | 11 | 44 | 44 | 42 | 7 | 7.52 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 144 |
| | 2 | 3 | 8 | 50 | 19 | 17 | 16 | 29 | 5 | 6.37 | 6 |
Company Loyalty | 152 |
1 | | 1 | | 2 | 14 | 3 | 21 | 24 | 86 | 9 | 7.97 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 149 |
50 | 19 | 23 | 22 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2.11 | 2 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 161 |
2 | 1.24% |
Considering new Interface | 161 |
6 | 3.73% |
System Installed on time? | 161 |
150 | 93.17% |
Average Collection size: |
| 411671 |
Type | Count |
Public | 140 |
Academic | 8 |
School | 1 |
Consortia | 0 |
Special | 2 |
|
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 54 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 43 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 27 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 27 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|
|
Product: Polaris |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 102 |
| | | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 37 | 35 | 8 | 7.77 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 102 |
| | | 1 | | 4 | 8 | 20 | 46 | 23 | 8 | 7.71 | 8 |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.71 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.71 | |
Company Satisfaction | 100 |
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 15 | 36 | 37 | 9 | 7.80 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 100 |
| | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 22 | 29 | 33 | 9 | 7.55 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 97 |
3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 23 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 20 | 5 | 6.37 | 7 |
Company Loyalty | 100 |
1 | | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 28 | 52 | 9 | 7.95 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 99 |
46 | 12 | 20 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | | 0 | 1.48 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 106 |
2 | 1.89% |
Considering new Interface | 106 |
8 | 7.55% |
System Installed on time? | 106 |
101 | 95.28% |
Average Collection size: |
| 541249 |
Type | Count |
Public | 91 |
Academic | 3 |
School | 1 |
Consortia | 0 |
Special | 1 |
|
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 39 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 22 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 20 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 15 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
|
|
Product: Polaris |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 101 |
| | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 42 | 32 | 8 | 7.77 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.77 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.77 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.77 | |
Company Satisfaction | 100 |
| | 2 | | 2 | 6 | 3 | 14 | 32 | 41 | 9 | 7.83 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 101 |
| | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 18 | 30 | 40 | 9 | 7.74 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 100 |
1 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 11 | 6 | 33 | 26 | 8 | 7.11 | 8 |
Company Loyalty | 100 |
1 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 25 | 52 | 9 | 7.92 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 100 |
41 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1.98 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 104 |
6 | 5.77% |
Considering new Interface | 104 |
10 | 9.62% |
System Installed on time? | 104 |
99 | 95.19% |
Average Collection size: |
| 356804 |
Type | Count |
Public | 92 |
Academic | 6 |
School | 0 |
Consortia | 0 |
Special | 0 |
|
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 33 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 20 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 17 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 9 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|
|
Product: Polaris |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 92 |
1 | | 1 | | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 52 | 21 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.79 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.79 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.79 | |
Company Satisfaction | 92 |
1 | | 1 | 1 | | 4 | 4 | 6 | 48 | 27 | 8 | 7.80 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 91 |
2 | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 45 | 22 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 87 |
3 | 1 | | 1 | 3 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 29 | 17 | 8 | 6.83 | 8 |
Company Loyalty | 91 |
3 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 37 | 36 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 |
Open Source Interest | 90 |
27 | 21 | 13 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2.28 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 92 |
6 | 6.52% |
Considering new Interface | 92 |
6 | 6.52% |
System Installed on time? | 92 |
85 | 92.39% |
|
Product: Polaris |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 51 |
| | | | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 16 | 8 | 7.73 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.73 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.73 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.73 | |
Company Satisfaction | 51 |
| | | | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 15 | 22 | 9 | 7.76 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 51 |
1 | | | | 4 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 9 | 7.41 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
Company Loyalty | 52 |
3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | | 3 | 14 | 25 | 9 | 7.33 | 8 |
Open Source Interest | 51 |
15 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | | 3 | 0 | 2.29 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 53 |
5 | 9.43% |
Considering new Interface | 53 |
3 | 5.66% |
System Installed on time? | 53 |
48 | 90.57% |
|
Product: Polaris |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 59 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 21 | 9 | 7.78 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.78 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.78 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 7.78 | |
Company Satisfaction | 64 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 20 | 26 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 64 |
| | | 1 | | 3 | 2 | 8 | 17 | 33 | 9 | 8.11 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
Company Loyalty | 63 |
| | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 18 | 24 | 9 | 7.49 | 8 |
Open Source Interest | 62 |
20 | 11 | 11 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.27 | 2 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 64 |
1 | 1.56% |
Considering new Interface | 64 |
2 | 3.13% |
System Installed on time? | 64 |
1 | 1.56% |
|
Comments
-
(Type: Public)
I take [...] advice as expert, if the recommended any changes, I would go with their decisions completely.
(Type: Public)
87,700 items are ebooks
(Type: Academic)
Polaris Library Systems has managed to increase their staff and customer support and maintained their core values to the benefit of the customers.
(Type: Consortium)
2010 census says population chartered to serve is 50,947
(Type: Public)
We just started with Polaris, have not been live a week, so our satisfaction is not graded upon Polaris really but upon training and how good we are getting along with it. We came from Follett, so Polaris is like moving to Mars, it's great, but nobody knows anything here yet. :) I wish we could have afforded more training. We are going into some areas (reports and overdues, notices, etc. totally blind, but our coordinator is supreme and helps us patiently and completely.) They are VERY good over there. I may have sunk ourselves with this decision and gone too big too fast.
(Type: Public)
Consortium not considering changing ILS. If we were forced to, though, would consider both closed and open source ILS products. But not SirsiDynix; never again. I'm not sure I've ever seen a bridge burned quite so thoroughly in all of my days.
(Type: Public)
We use Polaris, but don't host it ourselves. This causes significant lags due to the remote connection. Most of our problems comes from the lags. The product itself is fine, though not the most user friendly.
(Type: Public)
We just migrated to Polaris [...]
(Type: Public)
Polaris is managed by the [...] , utilized and supported by the [...] . I have nothing to do with the company or the contract.
(Type: Public)
We are very happy that we've migrated from Horizon to Polaris. The management at SirsiDynix, after we selected Polaris, acted in a completely despicable manner, send emails and PowerPoints to our mayor and board. I highly recommend anyone considering SirsiDynix to reconsider. Their behavior has been deplorable at best threatening at worst.
(Type: Public)
Open Source is not an option without a full-time programmer to customize such an ILS. Having the necessary staff with this level of technical expertise is not an option in the forseeable budget.
(Type: Public)
Very very impressed with Polaris.
(Type: Academic)
The [...] relies heavily on Polaris's customer service and technical support. Only with additional staff funding could we truly consider switching to an open source ILS solution.
(Type: Public)
Left Sirsi. Never looked back.
(Type: Public)
[...]
(Type: Public)
Offsite authentications is an issue for the college. As the interface between our ILS and authentication system, EZ Proxy, is very cumbersome. The college is currently looking for a more streamlined process to give offsite access to resources.
(Type: Medical)
Polaris continues to support us in a timely manner. They also are introducing new products that will enable us to check out materials to citizens remotely, which is something we anticipate eagerly. Integration with 3M ebooks into the catalog was a little challenging, but it is now functioning smoothly.
(Type: Public)
We added our ebooks and e-audiobooks to our catalog.
(Type: Public)
[...]
(Type: Public)
New support tools seems to be helping improve customer support. Better handling of difficult problems and real issues more likely to be classified as bugs when appropriate.
(Type: Consortium)
We had the worst launch of an ILS I have ever encountered. On "go live" day a number of crucial 3rd party applications did not work. We were given bad information by the sales team about what additional products (Polaris, not 3rd party) would work with a hosted site. It has been a long battle to get everything up and working correctly.
(Type: Public)
We just migrated to Polaris on April 3, 2013. Our new link to our catalog is [...] We are no longer a member of the [...] consortium.
(Type: Public)
[...] provides Polaris support internally.
(Type: Public)
We personally do not run the system, our library head quarter does that... they also put the system into place, we only benefit from it and wouldn't choose to use anything different from what they use for us. We couldn't ever find our own provider. So what HQ does is fine with us. And it is them that look after us, not the provider of the ILS.
(Type: Public)
-
(Type: Public)
The library migrated from the homegrown Endeca discovery platform (website/catalog combo) to a SharePoint 2013 website and the Polaris PowerPAC on September 30, 2013.
(Type: Public)
We migrated in October 2013, and so far have been pleased with our change. Polaris is more cost effective for our size of library, and offers more functionality than our previous ILS.
(Type: Public)