Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Library.Solution


2017 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction69 4 2 9 3 8 8 16 19 96.788
ILS Functionality69 2 3 7 8 5 14 20 10 86.657
Print Functionality69 1 1 6 3 4 7 7 20 20 87.008
Electronic Functionality68 3 2 6 3 4 7 7 9 19 8 85.937
Company Satisfaction68 1 2 7 4 6 9 17 22 97.188
Support Satisfaction69 2 1 7 4 4 9 15 27 97.328
Support Improvement67 1 3 1 7 14 7 8 13 13 56.377
Company Loyalty68 4 2 1 3 7 6 3 8 13 21 96.448
Open Source Interest69 23 7 10 2 9 6 4 4 1 3 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS69 2028.99%
Considering new Interface69 68.70%
System Installed on time?69 6492.75%

Average Collection size: 147696

TypeCount
Public47
Academic8
School5
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00018
[4] 250,001-1,000,0007
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction96 1 1 2 1 4 5 11 17 31 23 87.188
ILS Functionality96 1 2 7 3 11 20 33 19 87.218
Print Functionality96 2 1 1 5 3 8 21 28 27 87.308
Electronic Functionality95 2 3 2 3 5 15 11 27 17 10 76.237
Company Satisfaction95 2 1 2 8 7 15 32 28 87.458
Support Satisfaction93 1 2 3 6 8 14 19 40 97.598
Support Improvement94 1 11 27 7 16 16 16 56.447
Company Loyalty91 3 3 2 3 8 8 5 10 17 32 96.738
Open Source Interest94 31 10 12 8 10 7 5 2 6 3 02.682

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS98 1212.24%
Considering new Interface98 99.18%
System Installed on time?98 9091.84%

Average Collection size: 134749

TypeCount
Public66
Academic13
School12
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[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.

Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1027.21 95.8920637.3077.290137.231
ILSFunctionality1027.16 96.3320637.1677.570137.151
PrintFunctionality1027.67 97.6720637.5177.860137.771
ElectronicFunctionality996.89 95.7820617.0376.860136.231
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1027.66 97.0020637.7376.430137.771
CompanyLoyalty1016.92 95.2220637.1466.330136.541



2015 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 2 2 2 3 5 10 25 26 27 97.218
ILS Functionality102 1 3 3 2 5 14 16 37 21 87.168
Print Functionality102 1 1 4 3 9 13 38 33 87.678
Electronic Functionality99 1 3 6 13 8 24 26 18 86.897
Company Satisfaction102 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 19 33 35 97.588
Support Satisfaction102 3 2 4 2 5 13 35 38 97.668
Support Improvement99 3 1 1 7 20 9 13 18 27 96.727
Company Loyalty101 5 1 2 2 5 8 7 11 31 29 86.928
Open Source Interest102 35 12 12 3 9 9 7 4 1 10 02.882

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 1918.27%
Considering new Interface104 76.73%
System Installed on time?104 9793.27%

Average Collection size: 180187

TypeCount
Public72
Academic11
School13
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 4 7 10 26 25 18 77.177
ILS Functionality91 2 4 3 5 10 22 32 13 87.037
Print Functionality91 5 5 9 25 22 25 77.428
Electronic Functionality90 1 3 6 4 3 20 19 24 10 86.577
Company Satisfaction91 2 1 3 4 8 21 26 26 87.438
Support Satisfaction91 1 1 3 2 3 6 14 28 33 97.588
Support Improvement87 1 1 1 5 21 5 15 20 18 56.767
Company Loyalty90 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 12 23 32 97.198
Open Source Interest90 33 17 13 1 11 4 6 2 3 02.081

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 99.68%
Considering new Interface93 66.45%
System Installed on time?93 8692.47%

Average Collection size: 140836

TypeCount
Public65
Academic11
School12
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00011
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction69 1 1 2 2 6 8 16 13 20 97.107
ILS Functionality69 2 1 4 7 8 11 23 13 87.018
Print Functionality69 2 1 3 5 7 12 20 19 87.208
Electronic Functionality68 5 1 1 2 8 8 8 12 14 9 85.977
Company Satisfaction69 1 2 3 4 6 11 24 18 87.338
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 7 7 11 13 28 97.568
Support Improvement66 1 1 3 18 7 6 12 18 56.807
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 1 6 10 6 10 27 97.008
Open Source Interest67 32 1 7 6 2 13 2 2 2 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS70 1014.29%
Considering new Interface70 34.29%
System Installed on time?70 6998.57%

Average Collection size: 156324

TypeCount
Public53
Academic4
School7
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00014
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 2 1 5 1 5 8 17 34 33 87.388
ILS Functionality105 2 1 2 5 3 8 24 36 24 87.268
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction105 1 1 1 5 4 9 10 33 41 97.648
Support Satisfaction106 1 1 2 2 3 9 10 34 44 97.748
Support Improvement105 1 1 2 26 8 17 17 33 97.047
Company Loyalty106 10 4 2 4 5 9 13 13 46 96.778
Open Source Interest105 37 11 11 11 8 10 6 4 7 02.662

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS110 1412.73%
Considering new Interface110 65.45%
System Installed on time?110 10393.64%

Average Collection size: 162637

TypeCount
Public85
Academic10
School10
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction130 2 3 3 5 12 33 31 41 97.468
ILS Functionality128 3 4 9 11 31 46 24 87.328
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 1 2 10 11 24 34 46 97.578
Support Satisfaction130 2 4 3 8 11 20 34 48 97.528
Support Improvement129 3 2 3 8 22 9 21 24 37 96.837
Company Loyalty129 5 4 4 4 3 9 7 12 25 56 97.068
Open Source Interest128 37 11 20 12 10 11 10 8 2 7 02.952

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS132 2015.15%
Considering new Interface132 75.30%
System Installed on time?132 12796.21%

Average Collection size: 135321

TypeCount
Public100
Academic11
School8
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00070
[3] 100,001-250,00040
[4] 250,001-1,000,00014
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction103 1 7 6 6 7 21 31 24 87.098
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction102 1 4 1 4 9 4 21 29 29 87.238
Support Satisfaction103 2 2 2 7 2 11 18 19 40 97.328
Support Improvement100 4 1 5 3 4 24 10 11 22 16 56.136
Company Loyalty103 6 3 8 1 1 7 3 12 16 46 96.848
Open Source Interest102 34 9 15 10 3 14 4 4 1 8 02.772

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS105 1514.29%
Considering new Interface105 87.62%
System Installed on time?105 9388.57%

Average Collection size: 99085

TypeCount
Public80
Academic10
School10
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,0007
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction110 1 2 4 3 6 4 45 26 19 77.067
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction110 1 2 6 4 2 7 25 33 30 87.278
Support Satisfaction110 1 1 4 3 1 5 12 20 31 32 97.238
Support Improvement104 3 2 2 3 6 26 6 19 20 17 56.267
Company Loyalty109 4 3 6 1 1 12 4 15 22 41 96.948
Open Source Interest110 24 17 11 7 9 16 9 8 4 5 03.303

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS115 108.70%
Considering new Interface115 108.70%
System Installed on time?115 9784.35%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction30 3 2 4 6 7 8 97.208
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction30 2 5 1 3 11 8 87.338
Support Satisfaction29 1 2 1 3 8 8 6 77.077
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty30 1 1 4 2 3 5 14 97.508
Open Source Interest30 7 5 4 3 5 3 2 1 03.002

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS30 13.33%
Considering new Interface30 310.00%
System Installed on time?30 30100.00%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 4 4 15 12 8 77.167
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction66 1 1 6 6 3 16 18 15 87.058
Support Satisfaction66 1 1 1 2 2 8 4 16 15 16 76.927
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty65 2 3 2 2 1 5 6 7 20 17 86.778
Open Source Interest64 13 9 10 5 6 12 2 4 3 03.003

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS66 812.12%
Considering new Interface66 69.09%
System Installed on time?66 11.52%




2017 : gen: 6.78 company 7.18 loyalty 6.44 support 7.32

2016 : gen: 7.18 company 7.45 loyalty 6.73 support 7.59

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.58 loyalty 6.92 support 7.66

2014 : gen: 7.17 company 7.43 loyalty 7.19 support 7.58

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.33 loyalty 7.00 support 7.56

2012 : gen: 7.38 company 7.64 loyalty 6.77 support 7.74

2011 : gen: 7.46 company 7.57 loyalty 7.06 support 7.52

2010 : gen: 7.09 company 7.23 loyalty 6.84 support 7.32

2009 : gen: 7.06 company 7.27 loyalty 6.94 support 7.23

2008 : gen: 7.20 company 7.33 loyalty 7.50 support 7.07

2007 : gen: 7.16 company 7.05 loyalty 6.77 support 6.92

Comments

What we like best about TLC is the flexibility to change many things to suit our library and the relationships we have with their staff. (Type: School)

Staff seem to like it. It was here when I was hired in 2011. It is fairly inexpensive and works okay. I would just like to advance into the 21st Century. (Type: Academic)

TLC and OCLC are not playing well together so we have recently discovered that realtime availability in Discovery cannot be accomplished for a significant portion of the collection. We do not use TLC's acquisition system and it is not truly integrated. (Type: Academic)

We use what the district provides. We have very little input as to the system they purchase for us, and usually select the lowest bid. We just recently upgraded and lost all of our reports, except those offered by the vendor and a few someone else created. So we are back to searching for hours at a time for the correct report for our needs. We also lost many of our books. Often what was deleted shows up again, or when you try to do something for a student, it is messed up. (Type: School)

Previous to this year, customer support often answered the phone quickly. Lately, the phone diverts to administrative offices, who create a ticket for a tech to get back to you. The techs are just as knowledgeable, but we've been routed to admin more frequently. (Type: Public)

75000 items include e-content through Overdrive and One Click Digital. The Library Corporation is really great to work with. I have used 3 other ILS vendors but they have been the most responsive and we are a smaller library. Very happy with them and highly recommend them to anyone (Type: Public)

The strategic direction of the vendor is sound, but implementation and support efforts often fall short of expectations. (Type: Public)

The Library Corporation is extremely customer oriented, actively soliciting and implementing customer suggestions for product enhancement (Type: School)

We went out on RFP last year and chose to remain with TLC Library.Solution. We did add socialflow to work with ILS to send information out to the parents and community. (Type: School)

New library director wants to look at different ILS vendors. As the ILS liason I am very satisfied with TLC and do not wish to change systems. The issue we have is that our in house IT staff cannot properly support the system. I would like to move to their hosted solution so that we can operate outside the government IT department and its restrictive and non-supportive atmosphere. We are unable to do this per IT restrictions and cannot switch to TLC's LS Staff web product due to incompatibility with our current POS system. (Type: Public)

TLC has a very responsive customer support team; however, at times, we have found we have to prod them to follow through on support tickets. Additionally, we have to be very careful to fully communicate our needs as we are one of the few academic libraries using Library.Solution. That said, the product owners are more than willing to listen to our recommendations for software enhancement. (Type: Academic)

I am very pleased with TLC's cost, customer service, training, and ongoing updates. I am particularly pleased that they "hold our hands" on the rare occasion we need something done - saving me the need to hire a systems librarian or involve our local IT Department. The only reason I am considering migrating to Innovative Sierra is that it might save money through a consortium purchase / subscription. (Type: Academic)

We have been very pleased with our relationship with The Library Corporation product owners, sales, product offerings and Support during our 7-year experience with them. They are attuned to innovation, routine maintenance needs and the changing library environment. Our library patrons often comment on the ease and flexibility of our OPAC. Staff can easily manipulate cataloging and circulation modules. They communicate in a variety of ways and often. We often congratulate ourselves on making a great choice with TLC. (Type: Public)

Always responsive and supportive. Great online support site and they follow-up with email and phone calls. Updates are scheduled so that Library operations are not impacted. (Type: Academic)

I don't think I included e-books the last time the survey was filled out. Also, our e-books number jumped drastically this year because the whole state in now included in our count. (Type: Public)

TLC (vendor) is a company with excellent service. I think this is one of the most important thing that a company should have. (Type: Medical)

We spend approx. $20k+ each time we re-sign with the current ILS vendor, however it seems to be lacking in may areas and each time an enhancement request is made, it seems as if we are nickel and dimed quite a bit. (Type: Public)

I have worked for 30 years in public libraries. The Library Corporation has absolutely THE WORST search tools I have come across during my professional career. At another library where we had TLC, they charged us 7 years for a product that we did not have (OPAC book covers display) and tried to give us one year of free covers to offset it! I finally got to the top and got our money back, but during the fracus they blamed OUR IT PERSONNELL for improper installation!! My primary disappointment with them is their horrid search tools. I intend to leave this provider when the funds become available. (Type: Public)

I've been in this position and worked with this ILS for 5 months. This is my eighth or so ILS that I've worked with in my career. There are some features that are missing and some things don't work as well as in other ILS, but TLC excels at customer service. They are constantly trying to improve their products and release small updates every few months, as oppose to other companies that do large upgrades that take lots of time and tweaking to get to how you want them to be. Some in the consortium feel that going open source would be better, but I have my doubts. (Type: Public)

I hate being in a consortium. I like our ILS just fine but could never afford it on our own. Rock meet hard place. (Type: School)

We like TLC but the State of Missouri has a lot of libraries going to Evergreen. (Type: Public)

WE use TLC's web-based products and find them to meet the needs of our patrons as well as staff. TLC seems to embrace new technology and we look forward to new innovation. (Type: Public)

TLC's customer support is outstanding. If you call you ALWAYS get to talk to a real person and not just leave a message or fill out a ticket. They are incredibly patient and willing to work with you to solve a problem or figure out a way to do what you need done. (Type: Academic)

TLC has worked very well for our library. The customer service is only a phone call away. As the product goes, there is always room for improvement, indeed it works for us. Many thanks, (Type: Public)

There are issues with this system that do not conform with standard library needs. The Profile Link system is a convoluted mess! The technicians who created this labyrinth software probably have no problem navigating the maze, but accidental techies have a real problem with this system. Thank (Type: Public)

TLC is so quick in responding to every problem which we don't have many. They also listen to their customers and work to implement and customize each system to that customer's requests. Best yet they have been very reasonable on costs and keeping costs stable even in an unstable economy. I couldn't ask for a better company or product. (Type: Consortium)

ILS vendor support for discovery services is a consideration. We are implementing LS2 product interfaces along with the changes associated with the latest product upgrade. We were waiting for sufficient client-based functionality to migrate to the web-based LS2 product interfaces. (Type: Government Agency)

In searching for a new ILS, its ability to interface with a robotic retrieval system will be a major factor. (Type: State)

TLC is overall a very responsive and reliable system and vendor. Their customer support team is very knowledgeable although I sometimes feel they answer a question without fully reading it so don't answer it properly. But other than that, we are very satisfied with our ILS. (Type: Public)

This is the final survey for this library. Emmanuel Christian Seminary Library merged with Milligan College Library. (Type: Theology)

TLC support has been generally excellent. We did have some issues integrating with OverDrive but we resolved that issue with using email addresses rather than library cards as students always forgot their card numbers. Also, we wanted to use Library Thing with our LS2 PAC but most of Library Thing is incompatible. (Type: School)

Wish: Patrons want series in order displayed in public access catalog Wish: Library staff want to cancel search request in LS system Both have been request since 2010 TLC provides a good inventory control system, Bookings (Type: School)

TLC Library.Solution is a reliable ILS that is very attractively priced. Accessibility to top-notch customer service, on the rare occasions when it is needed, is good. Even though TLC is not prominent in the academic market, our experience indicates it is an excellent alternative to open-source systems for small college libraries that are seeking to cut costs. EBSCO Discovery Service is an endlessly adaptable, full-service discovery tool, but finicky and difficult to configure. Its administrative module is a study in arcane complexity. Even though the company has made substantial progress over the last couple of years in resolving links from ProQuest databases, EDS is still prone to be flummoxed by errant minutiae in non-EBSCO citations. (Type: Academic)

ILS