Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for EOS.Web


2017 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction14 3 5 4 2 77.367
ILS Functionality15 5 1 9 87.278
Print Functionality15 3 2 6 4 87.738
Electronic Functionality15 1 4 5 2 1 2 66.136
Company Satisfaction15 1 2 2 6 4 87.678
Support Satisfaction15 1 1 2 3 8 98.079
Support Improvement15 4 3 5 1 2 76.607
Company Loyalty14 1 2 3 4 4 87.218
Open Source Interest15 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 02.872

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS15 00.00%
Considering new Interface15 320.00%
System Installed on time?15 1493.33%

Average Collection size: 120469

TypeCount
Public0
Academic2
School0
Consortium0
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction32 1 2 1 1 4 7 12 4 86.848
ILS Functionality32 1 1 1 1 3 3 9 8 5 76.637
Print Functionality31 1 1 3 2 7 11 6 87.168
Electronic Functionality30 2 2 1 2 1 2 5 5 6 4 85.777
Company Satisfaction32 1 1 2 3 3 4 11 7 87.038
Support Satisfaction32 1 1 4 2 4 6 14 97.538
Support Improvement31 1 3 10 3 4 4 6 56.326
Company Loyalty32 3 1 1 2 4 5 8 8 86.568
Open Source Interest31 12 4 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 02.681

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 618.75%
Considering new Interface32 39.38%
System Installed on time?32 2784.38%

Average Collection size: 79775

TypeCount
Public1
Academic8
School0
Consortium0
Special7

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[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.

EOS.WeballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS337.21 96.330000000
ILSFunctionality337.21 96.000000000
PrintFunctionality337.64 96.890000000
ElectronicFunctionality315.97 84.750000000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport338.00 97.670000000
CompanyLoyalty337.39 96.440000000



2015 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction33 1 1 4 4 6 8 9 97.218
ILS Functionality33 1 2 3 2 8 8 9 97.218
Print Functionality33 1 2 3 8 7 12 97.648
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 8 6 4 75.977
Company Satisfaction33 1 2 6 3 12 9 87.488
Support Satisfaction33 1 6 4 3 19 98.009
Support Improvement31 1 1 8 3 4 5 9 96.907
Company Loyalty33 1 4 5 4 5 14 97.398
Open Source Interest33 10 5 3 2 4 4 2 1 1 1 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 410.81%
Considering new Interface37 410.81%
System Installed on time?37 3183.78%

Average Collection size: 65164

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 2 3 9 11 11 7 76.877
ILS Functionality45 2 3 1 8 10 14 7 87.027
Print Functionality45 1 2 2 5 5 14 16 97.588
Electronic Functionality42 2 2 4 2 1 3 7 11 2 8 75.767
Company Satisfaction43 1 2 3 4 5 13 15 97.408
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 4 7 7 22 97.608
Support Improvement45 1 1 1 6 12 6 6 2 10 56.076
Company Loyalty45 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 5 8 16 96.518
Open Source Interest45 20 8 1 1 3 6 2 1 3 02.241

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 919.57%
Considering new Interface46 715.22%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 67977

TypeCount
Public1
Academic10
School1
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00027
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction39 1 1 1 3 5 10 8 10 77.107
ILS Functionality38 1 2 6 3 6 10 10 87.088
Print Functionality39 3 2 4 7 7 16 97.568
Electronic Functionality36 1 1 1 1 2 4 7 6 8 5 86.317
Company Satisfaction39 2 1 2 10 10 14 97.548
Support Satisfaction39 1 1 2 1 3 10 21 97.909
Support Improvement39 1 4 8 1 9 5 11 96.777
Company Loyalty38 3 2 1 2 5 9 16 97.268
Open Source Interest39 15 5 5 5 3 1 3 1 1 02.051

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS39 615.38%
Considering new Interface39 820.51%
System Installed on time?39 3897.44%

Average Collection size: 64333

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School1
Consortium0
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction37 1 3 6 15 8 4 76.957
ILS Functionality37 1 2 3 5 11 12 3 86.897
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction37 3 1 7 3 15 8 87.198
Support Satisfaction37 2 7 10 18 97.978
Support Improvement35 2 13 2 4 7 7 56.637
Company Loyalty37 2 1 2 2 1 7 8 14 97.148
Open Source Interest36 19 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 01.780

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 513.51%
Considering new Interface37 38.11%
System Installed on time?37 3594.59%

Average Collection size: 65360

TypeCount
Public1
Academic5
School2
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction20 1 4 10 5 87.958
ILS Functionality20 1 2 7 6 4 77.508
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction20 2 13 5 88.158
Support Satisfaction20 3 7 10 98.359
Support Improvement20 6 3 5 2 4 56.757
Company Loyalty20 1 1 6 12 98.359
Open Source Interest20 11 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 01.650

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS20 15.00%
Considering new Interface20 00.00%
System Installed on time?20 1995.00%

Average Collection size: 34479

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00012
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.888
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.758
Support Satisfaction8 1 1 5 1 86.888
Support Improvement8 1 2 1 1 2 1 56.137
Company Loyalty8 1 1 1 3 2 86.638
Open Source Interest8 2 2 2 1 1 02.502

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 00.00%
Considering new Interface8 00.00%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 45095

TypeCount
Public0
Academic1
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0003
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


4 Responses for EOS.Web in 2009


2008 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 2 3 98.008
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.717
Open Source Interest7 1 2 2 1 1 23.293

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 00.00%
Considering new Interface7 00.00%
System Installed on time?7 7100.00%




3 Responses for EOS.Web in 2007

2017 : gen: 7.36 company 7.67 loyalty 7.21 support 8.07

2016 : gen: 6.84 company 7.03 loyalty 6.56 support 7.53

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.48 loyalty 7.39 support 8.00

2014 : gen: 6.87 company 7.40 loyalty 6.51 support 7.60

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.54 loyalty 7.26 support 7.90

2012 : gen: 6.95 company 7.19 loyalty 7.14 support 7.97

2011 : gen: 7.95 company 8.15 loyalty 8.35 support 8.35

2010 : gen: 6.88 company 6.75 loyalty 6.63 support 6.88

2008 : gen: 7.71 company 7.71 loyalty 6.71 support 8.00

Comments

EOS products have consistantly performed as requried. Their customer support is exemplary. (Type: Government Agency)

No other comments. (Type: Medical)

We are satisfied with the cataloging module in our ILS but the circulation module needs significant work to make it complete. (Type: Law)

Biblioteca especializada en Ciencias de la Salud. Recursos fundamentales: revistas y libros electrónicos y bases de datos y recursos point of care. (Type: Medical)

EOS fits our needs at this time. Some of the features are a bit klunky, overall we are satisfied. (Type: Government Agency)

We have been with EOSI for over 30 years. Our collection is very small so we cannot justify the cost of the larger sytems to manage the collection. Our patrons are very article based and use the catalog infrequently only to search for book content. Now that we are 99% electronic only, the catalog is used mostly by the library staff to manage what we subscribe to and keep track of what we purchase. Not sure if that is good or bad. I have even considered doing away with an ILS entirely because almost all our content is accessible through a url and patrons can and prefer to access it more easily searching google or pubmed. Sigh. (Type: Medical)

They're all the same, basically. Some are a little at one thing, but worse at another. I haven't seen one ILS that's a magic ticket to solve all our problems, or push us to a higher level. (Type: Law)

The EOS company products and services continue their transition since being acquired by SirsiDynix. The concerns that surfaced during the initial period of merger have been addressed or are in process of being addressed. They have worked hard to maintain good working relationships with customers. They are on a good path of improvements to functionality and interface re-design that is hoped will be more evident in the next year or two. (Type: Museum)

It provides the basic functionality required but the interface feels clunky (e.g. you have to click on a "paper clip" to select a record and not a double click on the name--like everything else on the web). The reports we required were far from intuitive and difficult to navigate the required path. (Type: Medical)

[...] (Type: Government Agency)

ILS