Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Evergreen


2017 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 1 1 1 5 16 31 28 18 77.267
ILS Functionality101 3 2 10 12 35 23 16 77.057
Print Functionality101 1 1 2 11 29 33 24 87.578
Electronic Functionality99 1 3 4 4 4 12 16 29 19 7 76.197
Company Satisfaction97 1 2 5 8 6 18 22 35 97.438
Support Satisfaction95 1 3 4 4 7 14 27 35 97.568
Support Improvement95 1 1 6 26 5 10 25 21 56.827
Company Loyalty91 6 4 2 7 9 9 19 35 97.028
Open Source Interest88 6 2 2 2 7 4 2 3 6 54 97.139

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS101 54.95%
Considering new Interface101 109.90%
System Installed on time?101 9089.11%

Average Collection size: 607030

TypeCount
Public3
Academic2
School0
Consortium2
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction114 1 1 5 7 17 23 39 21 87.228
ILS Functionality113 1 8 4 16 30 34 20 87.197
Print Functionality112 1 1 4 6 12 22 38 28 87.428
Electronic Functionality112 2 1 5 3 6 16 19 24 26 10 86.297
Company Satisfaction113 2 1 4 8 11 19 32 36 97.408
Support Satisfaction111 3 2 3 8 10 14 26 45 97.478
Support Improvement109 3 2 29 8 11 23 33 96.968
Company Loyalty104 7 2 2 2 1 9 6 11 19 45 97.038
Open Source Interest105 15 2 1 3 5 2 4 5 8 60 96.729

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 65.17%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 10792.24%

Average Collection size: 340121

TypeCount
Public3
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[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.

EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1117.13 77.4320837.3486.00004
ILSFunctionality1107.11 77.4320827.3285.63004
PrintFunctionality1117.54 77.7120837.6086.50004
ElectronicFunctionality1056.15 75.8620786.4174.29004
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1067.39 78.1410797.7286.88004
CompanyLoyalty1037.15 76.8610777.3087.13004



2015 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction111 2 3 3 4 17 30 32 20 87.137
ILS Functionality110 2 2 6 4 13 33 31 19 77.117
Print Functionality111 1 4 4 15 19 36 32 87.548
Electronic Functionality105 4 1 4 6 8 12 10 25 23 12 76.157
Company Satisfaction107 2 1 1 3 4 6 8 18 28 36 97.298
Support Satisfaction106 4 1 4 4 4 6 10 29 44 97.398
Support Improvement106 4 7 29 7 11 20 28 56.647
Company Loyalty103 3 2 3 1 3 9 7 11 27 37 97.158
Open Source Interest96 10 6 3 6 2 1 3 1 64 96.849

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 54.31%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 9884.48%

Average Collection size: 182296

TypeCount
Public3
Academic1
School0
Consortium2
Special0

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



2014 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction91 2 2 7 6 16 23 23 12 76.787
ILS Functionality91 2 4 6 9 11 26 26 7 76.647
Print Functionality89 1 5 7 4 25 30 17 87.298
Electronic Functionality89 3 3 4 14 12 19 16 10 8 65.756
Company Satisfaction89 2 2 3 9 12 17 22 22 87.107
Support Satisfaction89 2 1 6 6 11 19 22 22 87.127
Support Improvement89 1 1 6 25 12 14 11 19 56.526
Company Loyalty85 4 1 2 1 5 12 9 10 17 24 96.647
Open Source Interest79 8 1 2 1 3 3 4 3 5 49 97.109

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 22.15%
Considering new Interface93 88.60%
System Installed on time?93 8086.02%

Average Collection size: 203683

TypeCount
Public2
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special1

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



2013 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 4 3 2 9 20 18 14 76.977
ILS Functionality71 2 3 2 1 3 10 17 20 13 86.897
Print Functionality71 1 1 1 3 2 6 16 26 15 87.318
Electronic Functionality70 5 1 3 6 3 14 4 20 8 6 75.566
Company Satisfaction70 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 14 23 19 87.268
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 1 1 3 6 4 13 19 19 87.158
Support Improvement69 2 1 2 9 7 16 17 15 86.967
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 3 6 1 11 16 23 97.088
Open Source Interest58 7 1 3 2 1 2 6 36 97.169

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS71 22.82%
Considering new Interface71 34.23%
System Installed on time?71 6185.92%

Average Collection size: 211418

TypeCount
Public2
Academic1
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 10 2 4 3 12 9 31 25 10 76.227
ILS Functionality106 2 5 15 8 15 31 22 8 76.277
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction104 2 2 3 12 9 9 23 22 22 76.707
Support Satisfaction103 1 1 4 3 12 6 10 21 19 26 96.697
Support Improvement102 2 2 2 10 25 12 11 24 14 56.256
Company Loyalty101 6 2 1 2 10 6 5 19 26 24 86.607
Open Source Interest89 9 2 1 1 2 1 4 7 62 97.489

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS111 21.80%
Considering new Interface111 65.41%
System Installed on time?111 9181.98%

Average Collection size: 964406

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2011 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction60 1 1 1 4 2 12 23 9 7 76.627
ILS Functionality59 1 1 2 3 4 11 22 10 5 76.427
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction60 2 3 2 4 5 6 24 14 87.128
Support Satisfaction59 2 1 3 5 9 5 19 15 87.058
Support Improvement57 2 1 1 18 6 6 14 9 56.467
Company Loyalty58 6 2 1 2 4 4 5 9 25 96.748
Open Source Interest47 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 34 97.779

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS62 11.61%
Considering new Interface62 34.84%
System Installed on time?62 5182.26%

Average Collection size: 118879

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School1
Consortium0
Special1

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



2010 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 1 2 8 4 16 7 8 76.837
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction45 2 1 2 2 2 7 12 8 9 76.587
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 3 1 5 3 11 8 9 76.297
Support Improvement45 3 1 1 8 8 1 9 9 5 75.827
Company Loyalty44 2 1 2 2 6 2 6 9 14 96.778
Open Source Interest42 1 1 1 2 37 98.319

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS47 12.13%
Considering new Interface47 714.89%
System Installed on time?47 4187.23%

Average Collection size: 178623

TypeCount
Public41
Academic3
School0
Consortium2
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0008
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction50 1 11 5 21 6 6 76.727
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction50 2 1 1 13 1 15 10 7 76.607
Support Satisfaction49 2 2 13 2 15 7 8 76.457
Support Improvement48 3 3 12 6 2 16 6 86.467
Company Loyalty50 1 1 1 14 1 8 11 13 56.827
Open Source Interest44 1 1 1 1 40 98.439

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS51 11.96%
Considering new Interface51 611.76%
System Installed on time?51 4078.43%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction13 1 2 4 4 2 77.087
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction13 1 1 7 1 3 77.157
Support Satisfaction13 1 2 3 2 5 97.007
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty13 2 1 2 3 5 97.628
Open Source Interest10 10 99.009

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS13 17.69%
Considering new Interface13 17.69%
System Installed on time?13 1076.92%




4 Responses for Evergreen in 2007

2017 : gen: 7.26 company 7.43 loyalty 7.02 support 7.56

2016 : gen: 7.22 company 7.40 loyalty 7.03 support 7.47

2015 : gen: 7.13 company 7.29 loyalty 7.15 support 7.39

2014 : gen: 6.78 company 7.10 loyalty 6.64 support 7.12

2013 : gen: 6.97 company 7.26 loyalty 7.08 support 7.15

2012 : gen: 6.22 company 6.70 loyalty 6.60 support 6.69

2011 : gen: 6.62 company 7.12 loyalty 6.74 support 7.05

2010 : gen: 6.83 company 6.58 loyalty 6.77 support 6.29

2009 : gen: 6.72 company 6.60 loyalty 6.82 support 6.45

2008 : gen: 7.08 company 7.15 loyalty 7.62 support 7.00

Comments

It’s a system that doesn’t match our mission, quality assurance is lacking, usability is poor, it’s not cost-effective, it has taken all of the oxygen out of the room since May 31, 2011, causes embarrassing public relations, and long term sustainability is in question. (Type: Consortium)

We find the Evergreen catalog to be a problem in bringing consistent answers to the exact same search across different computers, or it brings up no title when we KNOW the title is in the collection. (Type: Public)

Our experience tells us that the Evergreen Open Source ILS does not adequately support our mission. We have ample evidence that a commercial ILS is not significantly more expensive than an open source ILS. We have evidence that we cannot (reasonably) do “anything we want” to with an Open Source ILS. We are now looking at the commercial ILS market and determine the best partner to support our mission and walk with us into the future. (Type: )

Reports section should be made to be very user friendly. Keep it simple! (Type: Public)

We love Evergreen. Giving our patrons easy access to the collections of 107 libraries is awesome! (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Academic)

[...] (Type: Public)

We like Evergreen very much. However, it's acquisitions module could use some streamlining and the reports module is very clunky. (Type: Public)

Very please with the system and service we receive. (Type: Public)

Open source is difficult but also very collegial. (Type: Academic)

We are a growing consortium. It seems as through there is not sufficient concern given to keeping records clean when new members are merged. This is a hosted solution for us, and there is more downtime than seems reasonable, and an apparent lack of urgency to resolve the underlying causes of the problems. The designers apparently aren't clear that managing fines and fees is an important part of what libraries need to do. Our accountants and auditors have fits over the lack of control over assets and limited reporting capabilities. (Type: Public)

Open source software requires a high level of in-house tech support - any up-front cost savings is more than offset by personnel costs. In retrospect, this was a poor choice for a small library like ours. (Type: Public)

Our program IS an open source program. (Type: Public)

Support services for upgrades and patches were lacking. Refusal to guarantee transfer of customizations and configurations (Type: Special)

[...] is part of the [...] consortium so all our support and product upgrades are provided through the [...] staff at Georgia Public Library Service. (Type: Public)

We are very please with SPARK- administered by PaILS and hosted by Equinox (Type: Public)

I have left questions unanswered because we implemented Evergreen on our own and do not have a support company. (Type: Academic)

We have used Evergreen for a number of years now and have added the Discovery layer about two years ago. Removing the fixed cost for a proprietary system has allowed our library to focus on and fund new services that have really changed our community usage. (Type: Public)

Our library consortium, [...], maintains its own instance of Evergreen and has two support staff for it. It is astronomically better than my previous commercial vendor experiences, which mostly have been with III. We particularly appreciate the ability to be able to fund our own custom work on the system and have it implemented quickly. (Type: Public)

Answers for 'vendor' are based on the Evergreen community, as we are self supported. (Type: Academic)

[...] is a public consortium providing access to automation and interlibrary loan services to libraries in Missouri. They've been very helpful through the automation process and continuing maintenance and improvements to the system. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Medical)

Since we are part of a consortium, we don't handle Evergreen coding directly. I love that it's customizable to what we need and there are multiple module that can be added and adjusted as necessary. Although some of the backend is overly simplistic and the front can occasionally be confusing for patrons, the BC Libraries Cooperative works hard to ensure our ILS is constantly improving. Overall, Evergreen suits our needs very well and we won't be changing any time soon. (Type: Public)

We are already using an open source ILS administered through a consortium. The challenge is coming to consensus on which features to invest money and time into for new functionality. (Type: Public)

We've been on Evergreen for about 5 years, but it is just so far behind the traditional vendor products, feature-wise, that it's hard to continue to rally support among the directors in the consortium that open source is worth it. (Type: Public)

We have had issues with the accuracy and completeness of the OPAC in Evergreen. Often title searches do not bring back titles we know we own, and even when it does, they are often on the second or third page of results, when less popular items that mostly meet the search terms are displayed first. (Type: Public)

At the present time were are using evergreen. Very few new materials as we are not an operational library. We have a blind and physically handicapped library that is operational and we are using KLAS. We are very happy with this product and it works well. (Type: State)

The current open source ILS in use is not robust enough to handle the very large and varied collection of items in our collection. Specialized handling is very slow to implement, if implemented at all. Basic services are fine and work as expected and the patron interface see ver5y few issues. The staff side workflow and cataloging functionality see the great limitations of this ILS. (Type: Public)

I have been very pleased with the 24/7 reliability of the Evergreen software as hosted/supported by Equinox. Our software is regularly updated to the latest version with very little impact to services. The system is easy to learn and easy to use. (Type: Public)

We use Evergreen Indiana which is an open source ILS supported by the [...]. Most of the system works well, but the Reports Module is the least user friendly module that I have ever seen of the different systems that I have worked with or seen demonstrated in my recent memory. It is hard to create a report from scratch, it is not easy to find other reports that are useful. However, it can produce extremely detailed information. My only other major complaint is that it doesn't handle being on limited bandwidth well at all so our bookmobile frequently has problems with it. (Type: Public)

This system is considerably more complicated than our old system (Spectrum) I wish it would be more user simple (for me) than it is. (Type: Public)

We largely use community support for our Evergreen ILS. However, if a special need arises we can contract out with Equinox for services and have been very happy with them. (Type: Consortium)

currently using Evergreen open source ILS (Type: Public)

We continue to be impressed with the personal service we get through Equinox. It's a world of difference compared to dealing with previous library vendors. We've been a customer of theirs for many years now, and even though we're a small organization we still get a high level of service -- something which was not the case with other ILS vendors. (Type: Public)

Our experience and satisfaction with Evergreen improves each year. We are actively involved in development for new features with the Evergreen community. Our support vendor, Equinox is very responsive and great to work with. (Type: Consortium)

We participate in a consortium with 4 public libraries, sharing Evergreen -- the server is housed and supported at the College. An IT Working group composed of reps from all 5 institutions meet monthly to consider any upgrades, changes, development required. We are now 5 years into operation and are going to consider our strategy this year for the upcoming 3-5 years. At this point, no one has indicated an interest in getting out of Evergreen or out of the consortium, largely because maintenance costs are so low. (Type: Academic)

We are already using Evergreen which is an open source ILS. (Type: Public)

Note: Approximate number of items in the library's collection consists of print and electronic items loaded in the ILS. Print only is approximately 50,000 items. (Type: Academic)

Equinox Software, Inc. did not exceed our expectations. We have staff that have programming backgrounds and the representative 'talked down' to us and I felt it was unproductive and disrespectful of our skills and understanding of how to implement a conversion and to create an attractive OPAC design. (Type: Public)

We are a very small community this part of a consortium. We are not currently looking to go out on our own at any time (Type: Public)

Evergreen is already Open-source (Type: Public)

ILS