Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for AGent VERSO


2017 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction50 1 1 1 2 5 10 20 10 87.308
ILS Functionality50 3 1 3 7 9 19 8 87.068
Print Functionality48 1 1 4 4 7 21 10 87.388
Electronic Functionality49 2 3 2 8 10 6 13 5 86.376
Company Satisfaction50 1 1 1 3 1 13 15 15 87.448
Support Satisfaction50 1 2 2 3 9 12 21 97.688
Support Improvement48 1 1 11 6 7 8 14 96.967
Company Loyalty49 2 2 3 5 6 15 16 97.338
Open Source Interest50 19 7 5 2 7 3 3 2 1 1 02.301

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS50 510.00%
Considering new Interface50 12.00%
System Installed on time?50 4386.00%

Average Collection size: 50971

TypeCount
Public25
Academic10
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction89 3 2 3 8 10 27 25 11 76.887
ILS Functionality88 1 3 4 10 12 15 35 8 86.897
Print Functionality87 1 1 2 3 6 11 25 25 13 76.997
Electronic Functionality75 3 2 2 3 6 8 9 18 14 10 76.157
Company Satisfaction88 1 2 4 5 10 13 37 16 87.278
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 6 8 13 32 26 87.628
Support Improvement86 1 7 12 11 24 15 16 76.847
Company Loyalty88 4 2 4 8 9 17 28 16 86.818
Open Source Interest85 24 10 22 6 6 7 5 3 2 02.332

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS90 44.44%
Considering new Interface90 22.22%
System Installed on time?90 8392.22%

Average Collection size: 39853

TypeCount
Public77
Academic11
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,00069
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2015 results according to the type and size of the library.

AGent VERSOallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1316.93 127.17001126.881002
ILSFunctionality1306.82 127.08001116.781002
PrintFunctionality1287.11 127.33001097.051002
ElectronicFunctionality1086.48 126.7500906.391002
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1307.58 128.33001117.471002
CompanyLoyalty1276.56 116.82001096.551002



2015 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction131 2 2 6 15 15 37 36 18 76.937
ILS Functionality130 2 2 7 13 16 45 32 13 76.827
Print Functionality128 1 1 1 8 2 15 42 43 15 87.117
Electronic Functionality108 1 1 3 6 7 8 14 32 25 11 76.487
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 2 2 11 10 39 41 23 87.227
Support Satisfaction130 1 2 4 3 12 28 40 40 87.588
Support Improvement125 1 7 35 10 18 30 24 56.777
Company Loyalty127 6 3 8 15 20 25 28 22 86.567
Open Source Interest122 36 9 24 6 16 15 5 6 4 1 02.682

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS136 118.09%
Considering new Interface136 32.21%
System Installed on time?136 12591.91%

Average Collection size: 38377

TypeCount
Public119
Academic12
School0
Consortium2
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000106
[3] 100,001-250,0008
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction53 2 2 2 2 7 8 11 11 8 76.267
ILS Functionality54 1 4 2 1 5 6 9 19 7 86.637
Print Functionality55 1 1 2 6 4 6 18 12 5 76.477
Electronic Functionality47 3 1 3 1 7 9 4 10 5 4 75.385
Company Satisfaction54 2 3 2 3 9 18 10 7 76.567
Support Satisfaction55 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 10 21 11 87.048
Support Improvement53 3 2 1 2 11 1 8 18 7 86.457
Company Loyalty54 4 1 2 2 3 2 9 2 17 12 86.398
Open Source Interest52 14 6 12 1 9 5 3 1 1 02.482

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS58 813.79%
Considering new Interface58 46.90%
System Installed on time?58 5594.83%

Average Collection size: 47480

TypeCount
Public49
Academic7
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction68 5 2 2 6 4 18 19 12 86.627
ILS Functionality68 3 1 1 5 6 4 19 18 11 76.687
Print Functionality68 4 2 1 1 1 2 6 14 22 15 86.858
Electronic Functionality63 3 2 2 3 6 7 6 13 11 10 76.027
Company Satisfaction68 5 1 1 1 1 4 3 16 15 21 96.908
Support Satisfaction68 4 1 3 1 3 2 11 17 26 97.198
Support Improvement64 4 7 18 2 11 8 14 56.207
Company Loyalty67 5 3 2 2 4 4 5 12 12 18 96.287
Open Source Interest66 24 11 5 1 7 10 3 4 1 02.381

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS68 710.29%
Considering new Interface68 22.94%
System Installed on time?68 6697.06%

Average Collection size: 42911

TypeCount
Public57
Academic8
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction74 2 1 3 1 5 15 31 16 87.328
ILS Functionality76 2 3 3 2 1 4 18 29 14 87.058
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction76 1 1 1 1 1 4 15 24 28 97.688
Support Satisfaction76 1 1 3 1 4 11 18 37 97.808
Support Improvement75 1 1 2 9 14 3 7 16 22 96.768
Company Loyalty76 5 1 1 2 4 4 8 22 29 97.248
Open Source Interest70 22 8 14 4 7 7 5 3 02.312

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS79 67.59%
Considering new Interface79 33.80%
System Installed on time?79 7189.87%

Average Collection size: 64695

TypeCount
Public61
Academic14
School1
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction67 1 1 2 6 12 21 24 97.728
ILS Functionality67 2 3 7 16 22 17 87.498
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction67 1 1 7 5 23 30 98.048
Support Satisfaction67 1 1 1 2 1 19 42 98.349
Support Improvement66 1 1 9 8 5 13 29 97.538
Company Loyalty66 2 1 1 3 3 8 18 30 97.708
Open Source Interest66 18 12 7 4 9 8 4 3 1 02.592

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS67 34.48%
Considering new Interface67 00.00%
System Installed on time?67 6597.01%

Average Collection size: 40971

TypeCount
Public50
Academic13
School2
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 3 7 27 17 16 77.407
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction72 5 4 19 16 28 97.818
Support Satisfaction72 1 2 3 19 12 35 97.998
Support Improvement71 16 15 4 5 8 23 96.617
Company Loyalty72 3 5 2 5 24 33 97.968
Open Source Interest71 20 7 20 6 2 11 4 1 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS73 45.48%
Considering new Interface73 00.00%
System Installed on time?73 7197.26%

Average Collection size: 31725

TypeCount
Public59
Academic11
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 1 5 16 27 21 87.838
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 2 5 19 42 98.319
Support Satisfaction70 1 1 1 8 15 44 98.349
Support Improvement64 2 7 2 10 10 33 97.759
Company Loyalty71 1 1 1 9 9 50 98.459
Open Source Interest71 29 9 12 1 5 8 2 3 1 1 02.061

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS72 11.39%
Considering new Interface72 11.39%
System Installed on time?72 6894.44%





2008 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction81 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 17 25 24 87.268
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction81 2 2 3 3 2 12 20 37 97.688
Support Satisfaction81 2 1 2 1 2 3 11 15 44 97.819
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty81 3 2 4 3 10 18 41 97.639
Open Source Interest81 30 6 6 8 8 11 5 4 1 2 02.632

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS83 44.82%
Considering new Interface83 00.00%
System Installed on time?83 8096.39%





2007 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction18 1 2 2 5 5 3 76.897
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 5 8 7 87.338
Support Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 4 8 8 87.468
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty24 3 2 1 3 8 7 86.588
Open Source Interest24 7 2 1 3 3 4 2 1 1 03.083

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS24 416.67%
Considering new Interface24 14.17%
System Installed on time?24 14.17%




2017 : gen: 7.30 company 7.44 loyalty 7.33 support 7.68

2016 : gen: 6.88 company 7.27 loyalty 6.81 support 7.62

2015 : gen: 6.93 company 7.22 loyalty 6.56 support 7.58

2014 : gen: 6.26 company 6.56 loyalty 6.39 support 7.04

2013 : gen: 6.62 company 6.90 loyalty 6.28 support 7.19

2012 : gen: 7.32 company 7.68 loyalty 7.24 support 7.80

2011 : gen: 7.72 company 8.04 loyalty 7.70 support 8.34

2010 : gen: 7.40 company 7.81 loyalty 7.96 support 7.99

2009 : gen: 7.83 company 8.31 loyalty 8.45 support 8.34

2008 : gen: 7.26 company 7.68 loyalty 7.63 support 7.81

2007 : gen: 6.89 company 7.33 loyalty 6.58 support 7.46

Comments

We are currently in an education process with the ILS. It may be that once further training has been received on the ILS that perceptions change. (Type: Public)

Two modules need more functionality: Reports, Global Search and Replace . (Type: Consortium)

The vendor seems to be trying hard to improve communication and customer service. This was it's downfall in the past. With these attempts the company has risen greatly to have an overall favorable impression. (Type: Public)

I am very satisfied with our system. The customer support is consistently great! The only reason I gave a less than excellent response above is that I wish it would provide the interface with Unique Management without it costing more than the system did! I also wish it could be NCIP without an additional charge. When I found out how much it would cost for the Unique Management module (over 5 years), I pointed out that if I could afford that, I wouldn't need Unique Management. We could afford to just write off the unreturned books and replace them. (Type: Public)

AG offers solid software at an affordable price which frees up dollars to support other patron service endeavors. Help desk support is better than most. (Type: Public)

This product works well for us because if any problems or difficulties are encountered we immediately contact the Southwest Kansas Library System team who take care of whatever the difficulty may be. (Type: Public)

AG Verso has been through many updates. When they announce the updates, they do not communicate very well regarding how to tell if you need to get your internal IT departmental help to be sure the update goes through, versus when they are minor updates. This results in many phone calls, emails and other delays until your update is working properly. Also, the features regarding to create bibliographic lists and to read circulation statistics are difficult to operate and difficult to view results. (Type: Academic)

We are a small library and we rely on our ILS tech support to help us and we have always found they to be very responsive and very helpful. (Type: Special)

This product gets a lot of comparison to KOALA. The Riviera Beach Public Library seems to be one of a very small group still using this product in our area. (Type: Public)

We really do appreciate the quick help from the customer service. There are still some sections of the new ILS system that we need help on and the customer service has done a fine job helping us along. Thank you very much. (Type: Public)

There are some components that we miss. It would be great if we could chose what dates we want to review on all reports. Having sound when we check an item out and not just when checking an item in. (And yes all are settings in Verso show that it is on.) Having a place to list memorial on books. Books we have showing up on search no matter if we search by title, author, or subject. (Type: Public)

An acquisitions subsystem capable of allowing holds to be placed on items currently only ordered and not yet received or held is highly desirable. The reporting functions of the system need to be more flexible. See the old Dynix RECALL module. it had nearly unlimited flexibility and strength. All fields should be searchable and a simple search language should be available to operators. (Type: Public)

The overall feeling of Verso is that it was not created by someone who knew how to best perform circulation operations (the heart of the library), not to mention other operations. A couple of issues faced on a daily basis are too many steps in performing functions and having to scroll down on the screen to view information. I've had experience with Horizon, Millennium, Evergreen and Verso. Although it took numerous updates to get to a user-friendly state with Evergreen, Verso is a distant fourth as far as usability. I've talked with staff at various libraries and have had in-depth discussions with my staff at two libraries--almost everyone feels they've gone dramatically backwards with Verso. (Type: Public)

The search engine is not user friendly enough. The phrasing and spelling of the search must be too exact. We would like the search to account for misspellings. We would also like for the search option to always be available and not have to be opened for use. This is a function we use all the time, every day. Thank you for considering these suggestions. (Type: Public)

I am very pleased that they are always looking at ways to improve the system and make it more user friendly. (Type: Public)

A way to alphabetize the "My Lists" once the list is created. (Type: Public)

[...] I am grateful for the expertise of Auto Graphics and thrilled with the performance of our current system. Remember, I have no experience with any other ILS or ILS vendor. (Type: Public)

We are very satisfied with Auto-Graphics and Verso. However, the instability and temporary discontinuation of the [...] Catalog and ILL Service has made us consider joining a consortium. IF AG can implement a Consortium of [...] Verso libraries, we will most likely stay with them. (Type: Public)

I do not like the search option. It does not bring up everything that I asked for plus the advanced option does not work correctly for us. I do Inter Library Loans (ILL) and it is very hard and a pain to search in verso especially after I put an ILL through. The search resets itself and I have to go back and check mark the libraries I want and put my search keywords in again. This is very hard to do and very time consuming. It wouldn't be a problem if I just did 1 or 2 searches at a time but when I have lots of searching to do for items to request then it is very frustrating. To sum: The search and advance search is very FRUSTRATING for me as an Inter Library Loan staff member. (Type: Public)

The only problems we have with Verso are printing labels and doing searches by subject. It is nearly impossible to find a book without the exactly correct title or author. We keep our old system open under Verso to locate books. (Type: Public)

a discovery interface sounds very helpful, but not sure at this point what it would involve to implement etc. Would want to research the possibilities much more. (Type: Public)

Auto-graphics has the BEST people, customer service, and affordability. We are so thankful to have them. (Type: Public)

Question 4- we do not currently have electronic resources, and there is no option for "N/A". Recently Agent/Verso seems to have grown exponentially. In making the system more generic to offer appeal to a wider variety of libraries, it seems that we have lost very useful features that were core to the operation of the system especially for a small library. (ie: the emphasis seems to be on adding functionality for billing services, texting, usage of Tablets when there are issues in the checkout, and check-in areas which could be much more user friendly.) (Type: Public)

I would describe Verso by Autographics to be serviceable, but lacking in some areas. I would like to see better integration between Verso and Overdrive as well as better integration between Verso and MeL (Michigan Electronic Library). Customer service is kind of spotty, and sometimes my tickets go unanswered. The discovery interface is better than nothing, but not by much. (Type: Public)

We were extremely disappointed with the training received during initial implementation. All training was completed via telephone rather than in person. I believe we would have learned more if we were trained in person. (Type: Public)

This ILS system works well for smaller libraries, but needs a process for handling bulk updates/deletions of MARC records. (Type: Academic)

I've been pleased with Auto-Graphics and their willingness to listen to what our libraries need. There are updates continually adding new features that will help libraries and their patrons find the information they need. (Type: Consortium)

ILS