Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Evergreen -- Independent


2017 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction19 1 1 9 3 5 77.427
ILS Functionality19 1 1 1 8 4 4 77.327
Print Functionality19 1 1 4 7 6 87.848
Electronic Functionality19 1 1 1 3 4 6 2 1 76.056
Company Satisfaction17 2 3 1 11 98.129
Support Satisfaction18 1 1 1 1 5 9 97.949
Support Improvement18 7 1 2 2 6 56.947
Company Loyalty16 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 97.389
Open Source Interest16 1 2 1 1 11 97.509

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS19 00.00%
Considering new Interface19 00.00%
System Installed on time?19 1684.21%

Average Collection size: 1435010

TypeCount
Public11
Academic1
School1
Consortium4
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction33 1 1 1 3 3 16 8 87.488
ILS Functionality33 2 4 8 10 9 87.558
Print Functionality33 2 2 9 8 12 97.738
Electronic Functionality32 1 2 1 2 3 3 8 7 5 76.447
Company Satisfaction32 1 1 1 1 1 4 7 16 97.639
Support Satisfaction33 2 1 1 2 1 6 20 97.739
Support Improvement31 2 4 4 9 12 97.358
Company Loyalty29 5 1 2 2 6 13 96.698
Open Source Interest30 9 1 1 1 1 2 15 95.509

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS33 39.09%
Considering new Interface33 00.00%
System Installed on time?33 33100.00%

Average Collection size: 660913

TypeCount
Public27
Academic3
School0
Consortium3
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[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.

Evergreen -- IndependentallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS216.48 220136.771001
ILSFunctionality206.60 220126.751001
PrintFunctionality217.05 220136.851001
ElectronicFunctionality215.38 220136.151001
SatisfactionCustomerSupport196.21 210127.421001
CompanyLoyalty176.41 210117.091001



2015 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction21 1 2 1 3 8 4 2 76.487
ILS Functionality20 1 2 1 3 6 4 3 76.607
Print Functionality21 1 2 4 6 4 4 77.057
Electronic Functionality21 1 2 2 3 2 1 6 3 1 75.386
Company Satisfaction19 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 3 75.957
Support Satisfaction19 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 96.217
Support Improvement19 3 3 5 1 4 3 55.425
Company Loyalty17 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 6 96.417
Open Source Interest18 1 2 3 1 11 96.179

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS23 417.39%
Considering new Interface23 14.35%
System Installed on time?23 1565.22%

Average Collection size: 439795

TypeCount
Public16
Academic4
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00011
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 3 1 2 66.296
ILS Functionality7 1 1 1 2 2 75.717
Print Functionality7 1 1 1 1 3 86.577
Electronic Functionality7 1 1 1 1 2 1 75.716
Company Satisfaction7 2 1 2 2 57.148
Support Satisfaction7 1 2 3 1 87.148
Support Improvement7 1 1 1 2 1 1 76.577
Company Loyalty7 1 2 1 1 2 56.296
Open Source Interest6 1 1 4 96.339

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 00.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 675.00%

Average Collection size: 311268

TypeCount
Public5
Academic1
School0
Consortium2
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 1 1 4 4 76.807
ILS Functionality10 1 6 3 76.807
Print Functionality10 1 1 3 4 1 87.108
Electronic Functionality10 1 1 3 4 1 75.607
Company Satisfaction10 1 1 2 3 3 87.308
Support Satisfaction9 1 1 2 3 2 86.898
Support Improvement9 1 1 1 2 3 1 86.447
Company Loyalty9 1 1 1 4 2 86.898
Open Source Interest7 1 6 97.719

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 00.00%
Considering new Interface10 00.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 217372

TypeCount
Public8
Academic1
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen -- Independent Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 3 3 1 77.718
ILS Functionality7 1 3 3 77.297
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction5 1 2 2 88.208
Support Satisfaction5 2 1 2 78.008
Support Improvement5 1 4 87.408
Company Loyalty5 3 2 88.408
Open Source Interest4 4 99.009

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 00.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 562.50%

Average Collection size: 827637

TypeCount
Public4
Academic1
School0
Consortium2
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0003
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010


5 Responses for Evergreen -- Independent in 2011

0 Responses for Evergreen -- Independent in 2010

0 Responses for Evergreen -- Independent in 2009

0 Responses for Evergreen -- Independent in 2008

0 Responses for Evergreen -- Independent in 2007

2017 : gen: 7.42 company 8.12 loyalty 7.38 support 7.94

2016 : gen: 7.48 company 7.63 loyalty 6.69 support 7.73

2015 : gen: 6.48 company 5.95 loyalty 6.41 support 6.21

2014 : gen: 6.29 company 7.14 loyalty 6.29 support 7.14

2013 : gen: 6.80 company 7.30 loyalty 6.89 support 6.89

2012 : gen: 7.71 company 8.20 loyalty 8.40 support 8.00

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: )

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

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)

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

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)

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)

currently using Evergreen 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)

ILS