Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony

2018 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction473 5 4 5 15 18 34 65 157 118 52 76.777
ILS Functionality471 3 5 7 16 16 46 76 125 122 55 76.727
Print Functionality471 8 4 8 6 10 28 51 104 162 90 87.138
Electronic Functionality460 22 16 25 23 38 50 79 108 58 41 75.656
Company Satisfaction468 4 6 11 15 18 33 56 137 120 68 76.797
Support Satisfaction462 2 7 13 8 19 34 39 103 122 115 87.088
Support Improvement448 9 1 11 14 37 137 49 52 66 72 56.106
Company Loyalty459 18 9 20 17 27 41 47 95 88 97 96.407
Open Source Interest460 158 56 58 23 43 43 31 24 5 19 02.592

Considering new ILS481 8918.50%
Considering new Interface481 449.15%
System Installed on time?481 43490.23%

Average Collection size: 552666


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000173
[3] 100,001-250,000104
[4] 250,001-1,000,000108
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00053
[6] over 10,000,0012

2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction531 5 5 13 14 23 39 89 154 122 67 76.697
ILS Functionality531 1 7 15 13 24 45 92 150 130 54 76.647
Print Functionality523 4 3 12 8 15 30 54 124 177 96 87.148
Electronic Functionality525 14 21 34 30 41 76 87 109 78 35 75.616
Company Satisfaction523 4 8 10 13 24 54 73 116 133 88 86.777
Support Satisfaction518 3 7 6 16 17 38 53 100 160 118 87.118
Support Improvement512 5 1 9 8 45 137 61 83 89 74 56.316
Company Loyalty516 31 5 23 13 25 51 56 107 103 102 76.347
Open Source Interest517 160 69 65 33 68 51 27 21 7 16 02.582

Considering new ILS536 10719.96%
Considering new Interface536 519.51%
System Installed on time?536 48690.67%

Average Collection size: 633322


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00023
[2] 10,001-100,000179
[3] 100,001-250,000116
[4] 250,001-1,000,000122
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00066
[6] over 10,000,0013

2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction431 3 4 10 12 17 31 58 126 117 53 76.797
ILS Functionality431 2 2 9 13 21 31 54 132 111 56 76.827
Print Functionality426 6 1 4 8 11 17 31 104 153 91 87.328
Electronic Functionality422 16 12 24 22 38 45 78 80 73 34 75.746
Company Satisfaction427 6 4 11 10 21 32 49 110 111 73 86.817
Support Satisfaction418 4 4 5 10 17 29 44 91 111 103 87.118
Support Improvement410 5 4 5 8 44 101 53 50 67 73 56.296
Company Loyalty425 17 11 7 11 16 46 41 84 90 102 96.647
Open Source Interest418 140 57 54 32 46 38 20 11 6 14 02.412

Considering new ILS436 8118.58%
Considering new Interface436 4911.24%
System Installed on time?436 40292.20%

Average Collection size: 2753248


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00016
[2] 10,001-100,000151
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00096
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00059
[6] over 10,000,0015

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

SatisfactionLevelILS4376.66 536.38336.21195.321726.90576.79126.92217.38267.15
ILSFunctionality4366.62 536.42336.18194.891716.88576.74127.33217.43267.15
PrintFunctionality4377.16 537.13337.36196.951727.15577.19127.67217.62267.50
ElectronicFunctionality4325.66 535.38334.61183.331706.03575.37126.08206.70266.62
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4276.92 526.73336.94197.111666.88567.04127.50197.47267.31
CompanyLoyalty4336.35 536.00335.61194.371696.50576.61127.33217.05267.42

2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction437 5 6 12 8 20 37 58 131 113 47 76.667
ILS Functionality436 8 15 12 18 41 54 132 116 40 76.627
Print Functionality437 4 5 4 5 17 22 36 123 144 77 87.168
Electronic Functionality432 12 20 23 27 35 62 61 89 69 34 75.666
Company Satisfaction432 5 9 13 15 18 30 51 109 119 63 86.697
Support Satisfaction427 5 4 14 12 15 33 36 101 123 84 86.927
Support Improvement420 8 7 3 5 46 108 42 71 69 61 56.206
Company Loyalty433 23 14 10 9 23 44 49 84 97 80 86.357
Open Source Interest426 153 61 59 27 40 37 15 15 5 14 02.271

Considering new ILS460 8217.83%
Considering new Interface460 4610.00%
System Installed on time?460 40187.17%

Average Collection size: 653631


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,000168
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00098
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00051
[6] over 10,000,0011

2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction354 1 4 9 16 14 29 55 124 76 26 76.537
ILS Functionality355 1 2 11 13 16 29 66 104 85 28 76.567
Print Functionality351 3 2 4 4 11 13 43 81 125 65 87.248
Electronic Functionality347 10 19 28 34 17 45 63 72 41 18 75.316
Company Satisfaction352 9 12 17 19 26 57 98 80 34 76.437
Support Satisfaction348 2 4 7 11 13 29 50 86 89 57 86.827
Support Improvement339 2 3 2 9 38 96 29 49 53 58 56.286
Company Loyalty343 13 12 13 17 22 38 43 56 68 61 86.157
Open Source Interest346 108 61 49 26 31 25 18 6 8 14 02.392

Considering new ILS361 7621.05%
Considering new Interface361 5214.40%
System Installed on time?361 32289.20%

Average Collection size: 707313


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000118
[3] 100,001-250,00081
[4] 250,001-1,000,00075
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0012

2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction315 3 3 8 14 18 23 36 99 74 37 76.617
ILS Functionality314 2 2 7 20 10 20 52 88 72 41 76.657
Print Functionality314 3 1 3 4 9 20 35 76 99 64 87.218
Electronic Functionality307 7 17 21 29 24 46 52 50 36 25 65.366
Company Satisfaction313 4 9 10 16 14 17 43 81 77 42 76.517
Support Satisfaction312 4 3 6 8 16 26 28 77 79 65 86.917
Support Improvement307 4 2 7 5 17 83 23 57 50 59 56.467
Company Loyalty312 21 8 10 9 17 41 26 56 61 63 96.197
Open Source Interest304 90 34 49 22 27 40 13 13 7 9 02.672

Considering new ILS324 6620.37%
Considering new Interface324 5817.90%
System Installed on time?324 29290.12%

Average Collection size: 835498


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00024
[2] 10,001-100,00080
[3] 100,001-250,00064
[4] 250,001-1,000,00067
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00041
[6] over 10,000,0012

2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction380 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 122 72 30 76.377
ILS Functionality380 1 1 5 24 24 41 47 114 94 29 76.527
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction378 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 98 71 32 76.217
Support Satisfaction378 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 102 80 50 76.487
Support Improvement371 3 3 6 16 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.236
Company Loyalty376 30 11 22 18 25 48 33 76 54 59 75.707
Open Source Interest374 97 44 47 35 35 42 28 19 13 14 03.012

Considering new ILS393 7920.10%
Considering new Interface393 7619.34%
System Installed on time?393 34888.55%

Average Collection size: 644460


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000125
[3] 100,001-250,00093
[4] 250,001-1,000,00080
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00054
[6] over 10,000,0012

2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction326 5 6 9 11 21 37 61 102 57 17 76.187
ILS Functionality320 1 2 7 18 18 30 63 93 69 19 76.397
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction326 6 7 19 20 24 35 58 83 53 21 75.886
Support Satisfaction324 4 10 11 14 18 44 54 72 68 29 76.177
Support Improvement323 5 10 10 12 28 81 37 60 48 32 55.876
Company Loyalty323 23 16 16 13 31 44 40 54 55 31 85.476
Open Source Interest318 63 32 48 21 34 45 18 27 12 18 03.483

Considering new ILS333 7622.82%
Considering new Interface333 8826.43%
System Installed on time?333 30390.99%

Average Collection size: 570393


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00084
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00040
[6] over 10,000,0011

2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction271 3 5 9 12 19 37 41 77 50 18 76.157
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 8 8 17 11 26 37 54 57 39 14 75.636
Support Satisfaction269 8 7 15 20 23 32 50 56 39 19 75.676
Support Improvement271 11 7 16 28 21 87 26 26 26 23 55.155
Company Loyalty270 18 15 10 24 29 34 40 40 32 28 65.266
Open Source Interest269 64 26 30 17 19 31 29 19 14 20 03.593

Considering new ILS282 5720.21%
Considering new Interface282 8128.72%
System Installed on time?282 24285.82%

Average Collection size: 580366


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00085
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00028
[6] over 10,000,0011

2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction304 3 5 6 9 16 62 56 96 44 7 76.066
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction303 5 9 27 23 22 56 48 79 29 5 75.346
Support Satisfaction303 3 12 30 23 17 54 45 66 41 12 75.446
Support Improvement292 7 11 19 29 23 89 35 39 30 10 55.095
Company Loyalty301 32 14 12 14 23 67 31 49 43 16 55.065
Open Source Interest300 53 34 26 25 30 40 25 20 23 24 03.904

Considering new ILS310 4915.81%
Considering new Interface310 8527.42%
System Installed on time?310 26184.19%

2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction233 4 7 11 19 16 35 37 64 32 8 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction234 9 9 16 31 28 23 43 43 26 6 65.056
Support Satisfaction233 12 14 23 18 21 36 39 38 23 9 64.915
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty233 21 13 19 18 17 36 20 43 34 12 74.955
Open Source Interest231 36 23 21 24 17 37 12 23 16 22 54.114

Considering new ILS234 5423.08%
Considering new Interface234 6929.49%
System Installed on time?234 21491.45%

2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction200 4 1 5 10 6 23 29 64 43 15 76.417
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction284 5 8 20 23 27 43 47 61 38 12 75.506
Support Satisfaction282 6 10 13 27 37 33 42 64 34 16 75.486
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty279 25 10 12 9 16 59 31 42 36 39 55.526
Open Source Interest281 54 41 36 32 17 36 21 14 9 21 03.353

Considering new ILS288 4214.58%
Considering new Interface288 6020.83%
System Installed on time?288 10.35%

2018 : gen: 6.77 company 6.79 loyalty 6.40 support 7.08

2017 : gen: 6.69 company 6.77 loyalty 6.34 support 7.11

2016 : gen: 6.79 company 6.81 loyalty 6.64 support 7.11

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48


We may move to an NZ consortium, but the software would be the same (Type: Public)

We have never used all the modules with the Unicorn system. We had to add a technologist position to help maintain Discovery and webpage updates. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix Symphony works very well for our print resources and for many of our ebooks, and integrates well with EBSCO EDS for our other eresources. Customer support from both companies is excellent. We are looking at other options mainly because of involvements with statewide and local area consortia which might provide for easier consortial borrowing and lending, and possible cost savings. (Type: Academic)

ILS handling of electronic resources not applicable yet (Type: Public)

Comments regarding vendor satisfaction relate to our consortium, which handles relations with SIRSI and provides support for desktop Workflows implementation and Enterprise public web interface. (Type: )

I like what I have seen from SirsiDynix's next generation products (BlueCloud). However, the pace of development has been disappointing. Much of our development efforts lately has been not looking at our ILS or Discovery layer, but at our digital library/IR and software related to special collections: Islandora, Digital Commons, ArchiveSpace, Open Journal Systems, Aeon (Type: Academic)

While the SirsiDynix product we use is not flexible enough for a (Type: Special)

SirsiDynix takes way too long to fix their bugs in my opinion. They often offer products and it doesn't work for production purposes until at least a year or more has passed. (Type: Public)

Our current system is mature and provides the functionality that we need, but much of the new functionality being developed by the company is not included in our current maintenance contract and would require additional funds to purchase and implement it. For this reason, it feels as though we are getting less for our annual maintenance fee than we did in the past since we are not gaining the benefit of new features as they are added. (Type: Academic)

We have concerns that Library vendors like SirsiDynix, Ex Libris, and Innovative are owned and swapped by private equity firms, which prioritize profits over ease of use for a library. (Type: Academic)

Just a note we use Blacklight as primary catalog with EDS integration in Blacklight gem. (Type: Academic)

We signed the contract for Alma/Primo in 2014, but do not go live until April 2016. We are still currently using Sirsi's Symphony product. The answers to this survey are based on Symphony. (Type: Law)

General satisfaction with daily operations is high. Most functions work as expected. The consortium went through a process of reviewing other vendors and provided a list of improvements the current vendor needed to address. Signed a short term contract with existing vendor in order to gauge improvements. Vendor was reticent to agree to functionality improvements. This is a difficult decision for a large cooperative to come to terms with. Some are satisfied with staying the course, others think the grass is greener elsewhere. Both camps have valid reasons for their positions. (Type: Public)

We have been very pleased with the direction that SirsiDynix is going. It's next generation (Type: Academic)

The system is managed by a team in the [...] campus. (Type: Academic)

Thinking of implementing an ERM system. (Type: Academic)

In July 2015 we migrated from a local system to a SaaS system. The transition was smooth for the most part, a few glitches, but credit to the project manager and client care to resolve all issues within a week of the migration. (Type: Academic)

Support is excellent. The organization continues to develop new ways of presenting data and keeping up with technology. (Type: Government Agency)

Certain developments of the products can seem slow to reach completion but the needs of our small libraries are sufficiently met. (Type: Public)

We are about to get the vendors in again to demo their next-gen products. Last time we looked at the systems, around 8-12 months ago, we felt that the new products were still quite under-developed. (Type: Academic)

We just migrated to Symphony on November 13. Today is Nov. 17. This was my first migration and I did not have high expectations for SirsiDynix. I was very wrong. The project team from SD was amazing- very supportive and most importantly, responsive. We knew exactly what was going to happen and when. We went live on the day planned without any major issues. So far, our staff has been happy with Symphony. My issues with SD have to do more with training opportunities. Training for staff fell under "circulation" and "tech services" There were no specific "reference" training classes and when I asked for a custom class, the trainers were stumped. One of the weak areas for Symphony is that the system is divided into either circulation or tech services modules and leaves out reference services. Since public libraries rely heavily on helping patrons with reference questions, putting items on hold and general searching, this is a major weakness for Symphony. (Type: Public)

Our library has been a SirsiDynix customer for a very long time, but with the retirement of the previous Systems Librarian and the hiring of a new University Librarian we are looking at a migration to a cheaper and more modern option. SD has a tendency to charge quite a lot for relatively little and poor quality support and the ILS itself is an antique. It is felt that even if we were to pay a company for hosting and support of Evergreen it would be more sustainable than the current model and any money saved could go towards a discovery layer beyond Worldcat Local. We are aiming to be completely off Symphony and it's associated products by 2017. (Type: Academic)

Vendor has been slow in implementing Bluecloud products. Thank you for all the time and work you do with this survey and library technology as a whole. (Type: Academic)

[...] is a member of the [...] , a consortium of over 100 multi-type libraries in Montana. (Type: Public)

We are part of the statewide [...] so our interactions are with the state library, not the ILS vendor directly. We are not impressed with Enterprise. Patrons were frustrated with lots of false hits ("cabbage" when they wanted "cribbage"), we can't see the holdings of other libraries in the system, ILL requests are directed back to the Classic version of the catalog ... and it's not clear what can be changed/customized and what we're stuck with, especially in a consortium with 80+ libraries of different types (public, academic, special, school). (Type: Public)

We are considering migrating to a new ILS, but are currently reviewing current market. Cost, integration with other enterprise systems, and future development are the key concerns. (Type: Medical)

We are extremely happy with the technical support and customer service of our consortial staff. We rarely work directly with SirsiDynix, so don't have a lot to base our rating of their support on. Our parent organization prefers not to use open source, so that would be our preference, but I'm confident that we would continue with our consortium if the group decided otherwise. (Type: State)

SD is improving when it comes to understanding that ultimately the patron is the customer, not the Library; that Enterprise, for example, needs to work for the end-user, not just the Librarian. Open Source is always tempting but we lack the staff knowledge/skillset to implement it independently. (Type: Public)

Recent migration to a new server had problems weeks after go live date. Company still too slow at implementing promised functionality. Focus on BLUECloud (BLUE = Best Library User Experience) seems to translate to "Make it pretty to attract users to public libraries" not "Help libraries provide better services for their users." (Type: Academic)

Totally United States centric. Full of promises, but hopeless at delivery. Dates never realized. (Type: Public)

The [...] consortium just signed a second 7-year agreement with SirsiDynix, so we'll be using Symphony through 2022. (Type: Public)

I gave SirsiDynix a lower mark for their handling of electronic resources since their ERMS does not provide legal resources. BLUECloud Campus seems to be the closest product suite in terms of what would be required to manage our e-resources but would need to be adapted to federal government or special libraries such as ours vs. academic type libraries. (Type: Law)

A module for electronic resources has been introduced but our library has not chosen to spend the money for it. (Type: State)

SirsiDynix has become a much more open, reliable company to work with since the current executive team has been in place. And, since ICV bought the company, there seems to be a greater focus on product quality instead of product deadlines. The care, and customer input that has gone into the BlueCloud products is phenomenal. I don't know any other software company that involves its customers as directly in its development planning as SirsiDynix does. (Type: Consortium)

Handled through consortium, I added answers anticipating that survey would be rejected if not filled in, unable to remove them completely after I added them. (Type: Government Agency)

We tried open source, but it was not as reliable and the support wasn't where we needed it to be for the amount of transactions we typically see. (Type: Public)

We are happy with how progressive SirsiDynix has become with providing a complete system and with the direction they are taking with their Blue Cloud products. They listen to us and respond to our concerns and requests. (Type: Consortium)

Our satisfaction with SirsiDynix has definitely improved over the last 1-2 years. We find them more responsive to individual requests and new products are launching more quickly. They've also made an effort to include some new products in existing maintenance plans. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix has good, stable, reliable software - but their development timeline is very extended, especially for their OPAC, and their pricing is very high. Their drip-pricing model to charge for each module, service & license is making us grow quite dissatisfied. We are currently monitoring their BlueCloud product, which will influence our decision to stay with SirsiDynix. (Type: Public)

Jump in collection size is due to ebooks. We have added 250,000+ (Type: Academic)

fully featured product, not so good on the reporting side. Support is generally very good and the company is good at listening (Type: Academic)

Very early in the investigative process. The problem is not so much with SirsiDynix Symphony product, but the small amount that we have implemented from them. We definitely need additional capability and are thus reviewing what the options are -- which includes looking at other vendors. (Type: Law)

We are having to do a tender exercise during the next 2 years to remain in alignment with University procurement policy. However, we are satisfied with the supplier we have and are making the system work as well as we can until this tender exercise starts. (Type: Academic)

We recently added Enterprise and eResource Central which has helped with the discovery of our electronic holdings. Overall, I am very happy with Sirsi, but a great product does come at a cost. (Type: Public)

It seems to me that this fall there have been many more glitches of various kinds in many of the products we use. This is unsettling and perhaps is because the age of computerization is fairly young. (Type: )

We're migrating with a go-live date of 4/19/16. Same ILS, but joining the [...] consortia. (Type: Public)

I'm answering the survey from a consortia staff perspective since [...] is not a library. We implement, enhance and support the ILS and Discovery for member libraries. I have sent the survey to each [...] member to complete. The library collection count is a cumulative total of all LOUIS libraries. [...] has a strong partnership with SirsiDynix. The current ILS meets the primary needs of [...] member libraries, but we're looking forward to using the BLUEcloud products since libraries' needs are rapidly changing. However, we have been discouraged by the slow roll-out of the new products. We first heard the term BLUEcloud at the users conference in 2011. In 2012, we learned that new cloud based applications were coming soon. In 2013, it was branded as BLUEcloud Suite. In 2014, more updates and now called an LSP with EDS integration coming soon. In 2015, it was rebranded as BLUEcloud Campus. Unfortunately, we still don't have any of the core BC Campus products in Production. While the products have a lot of potential, they're still not full-featured and remain disjointed. We remain optimistic that it's coming together soon. (Type: Consortium)

We have found the the SirsiDynix Symphony ILS is the easiest system Centenary College of Louisiana has ever migrated to. The LOUIS support team and the Symphony Team are great to work with. Thank you for being an excellent system. (Type: Academic)

The majority of ILS Support issues are directed to us right here at the cooperative from our member libraries and we are able to resolve about 95% of them. We create cases with client care for those that we are unable to resolve. (Type: Consortium)

The development of cloud-based modules (cataloging, stats/reports, circulation) is a direction we are pleased with, though we haven't yet started using any of those modules (except Enterprise). (Type: Public)

Catalog shared with Consortium. Contract with vendor is coming up for renewal. Discovery: [...] uses VuFind for access to one digital collecton and is implementing it for another digital collection, but not for the collectoin as a whole. (Type: Government Agency)

Migration seems inevitable, though costly. SirsiDynix products are improving but to what extent its e-resources management can improve is a question. The linked data trend is also pressing for decision-making. (Type: Academic)

I wish SirsiDynix would devote more resources to our mobile users. (Type: Public)

My experience with SirsiDynix has been that they are very helpful and flexible in working with me. They provide a lot of documentation and their customer support is good. They move quickly to resolve issues and help find solutions. (Type: Academic)

We belong to a consortium, so will go with whatever the larger group decides. We do not have adequate staffing to support open source software, so the consortium administration would have to supply that. This need would add to the maintenance cost of open source. (Type: Public)

BiblioCommons is great! (Type: Public)

The number in our collection is our main and branch library. The branch library is in the process of being automated and should be completed by the end of December. (Type: Public)

We have been out to tender for a new ILS/Discovery solution during 2015 and having evaluated the market we chose Ex Libris' Alma & Primo, which we are currently implementing, as this solution met in an integrated way our current and future needs as a Library service. (Type: Academic)

We would like a vendor provided data reporting system. (Type: Public)

We plan to review the marketplace for Discovery systems in the coming year to decide whether to stay with Summon or move to some other product. (Type: Academic)

We are still learning and improving the system. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix's slow migration to the new, still-developing BLUEcloud platform puts some libraries in a sort of limbo. The company seems less interested in fixing issues on the current platform as it shifts resources to BLUEcloud. We doubt that we will be confident enough in the new product to migrate to BLUEcloud PAC, Cataloging or Circulation modules for at least a couple more years. (Type: Public)

We migrated from Koha (PTFS) in April 2015 to Symphony (SirsiDynix). We were very pleased that SirsiDynix was able to meet our accelerated migration timeline. We were very pleased with the migration team and with the customer service that we have received since the migration. (Type: Public)

better copy and paste features are needed. the "help" tab is not very helpful (Type: Public)

Search terms must be very specific to find a particular title or subject. (Type: School)

Budget prevents consideration for replacement ILS or implementation of a discovery interface. Over the past years, we have been forced to continue with reduced features on ILS due to expenditures. (Type: Public)

We are just beginning the process to migrate from Sirsi/Dynix Unicorn to ExLibris Alma. Our go live is April 2016. We were less and less satisfied with Sirsi and the pricing for the modules we had. And the pricing we were offered to move to the more current offerings (Type: Medical)

SirsiDynix Symphony is the only ILS I have worked with, so it speaks volumes that I'm extremely unsatisfied with it. The interface is bulky and has not been updated in many years; the reports module is absolutely not intuitive and difficult to use, and the formatting of the reports themselves is horrific. The holds feature is not helpful for our consortium, as there is no option to say "no" to issuing a hold and have it speedily go to the next library in the queue. Being part of a consortium, I don't think Symphony has met our needs, so I look forward to the process of looking into other vendors. (Type: Academic)

We just completed the RFP/bid process to continue with SirsiDynix. (Type: School)

I received approval this morning to migrate to Bywater Solutions in the coming year. (Type: Academic)

We are part of a library consortium so we went with the ILS that was chosen by the consortium. Our collection is all electronic, so the discovery interface is the one that the patrons use. The ILS runs in the background. The consortium will be looking at other ILS products as it comes up for renewal. At that time, I would assume that we would look at open source possibilities. (Type: Academic)

Most of the information requested here is handled at a consortium level (Type: Public)

Great people to work with, across the board, at Sirsi Dynix! (Type: Public)

NA (Type: Medical)

Would like more functionality with basic ILS package - such as richer reports, and resource sharing. Running ILS Discovery Layer without any access to journals. Ebsco EDS is set up but without access to our print collection. (Type: Public)

Systems handles consortial aspects of service well - service is a shared Library service for [...] (Type: Public)

We are part of the [...] library system. So leaving or shopping for something better is dependent on them. When this director contacted sirsi directly to improve the way we print overdue notices, I was told by Sirsi that I was not authorized to inquire. This is an unacceptable reply in the library service industry. I have used four other library circulation systems in my career and each of these other companies were more receptive to inquiries about their systems. Also their systems were set up to allow the user to transition from one task to another with- out exiting the current screen. Thank you (Type: Public)

Being in a consortium has its advantages (lower cost/maintenance) but you unable to customize (or harder to). (Type: Academic)

Estimados felicito el trabajo que realizan, debo informarles que UPAO se encuentra en proceso de implementación del SIGB de Symphony, a partir del próximo año responderemos a la encuesta. Gracias (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix Symphony is a good product, but is severely lacking in reporting functionality and RFID integration. Customer support is handled through our consortium so I don't have direct experience. (Type: Public)

The ILS is very patron-friendly (once they get used to it), but not staff-friendly. Patrons have more freedom and control over their accounts, which is great. However, the staff interface is like something from the 1990's in both appearance and functionality. You have to constantly open new tabs/windows to do pretty much anything and you can only accomplish one small thing with each tab/window. The item windows are also cramped and crowded. You have to scroll and scroll and scroll some more. The search interface, for both patrons and items, is difficult to use - too many different buttons and limiting is awful. At this point in time, EVERY search engine should be a "smart" search engine and recognize misspellings and partial words or names. The other really bad thing is that it is very difficult to pull useful reports and they can't be sorted in any useful manner. You are limited to ONE sort criteria, and it's not "smart" enough to omit articles (a, an, the) from the sort, so nearly everything ends up in the T's under "The ...". If you export a report to Excel, the row data isn't always locked together, so if you try to sort there, only the column you select will sort and all the other data remains in its original rows. I end up having to cut and paste to sort the reports manually. (Type: Public)

Open Source still needs more "there" for a complex consortia. Given the reduction of ILS vendors to choose from, it is important to consider the possibilities. Sirsi needs to deliver on the Blue Cloud vision more quickly. There is concern over true cutting edge development with Polaris. (Type: Consortium)

No system is perfect and our options seem to be decreasing instead of increasing in terms of an ILS. Improvements need to be made within Sirsi. We are still not happy with the searching in Enterprise after our rollout of a year ago. Searching seems to pose many problems for Sirsi. The other issue is that the cost for a migration is high and so a new system would need to be worth it to move. However, each system has its downsides. We wish that enhancements and changes could happen more rapidly. We feel that the systems are already behind and can't keep up with other technological changes. (Type: Public)

We have not yet started to use Symphony. We will be converting from Autographics AgentVerso to Symphony in January/February 2016. We were very happy with the AgentVerso product and especially with their customer service. A new library board here chose to move from an independent ILS to the [...] as a cost saving measure. None of the library staff were consulted in regards to this move. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Consortium)

SirsiDynix seems to be moving in a better direction than products of the past and working to put the resources into a better environment. Customer support for Enterprise and eResource Central issues has improved over the past year. In-person training received for Sirsi Acquisitions in past year was inadequate for our staff. I would recommend an open source ILS if we were to hire the staff required to support it. Current staffing inadequate for open-source ILS support. Sirsi Frontline support has always been responsive, but development is WAY behind what it should be for 2015. Both front end and back end interfaces should be MUCH more streamlined and any public facing sites should be responsive, which they are not. Features, like ERC and Bookmyne, are released and sold/promoted to libraries prematurely (buggy, beyond typical post-beta standards). (Type: Public)

Our library gets it's ILS through a consortium of libraries represented by our state library which represents every public library, the community colleges throughout the state and a couple of high school.s The decision for which products or vendors used and the maintenance involved is not this library's decision alone. (Type: Public)

The vendor does not appear to be keeping up progress in ILS development (Type: Academic)

We need a LMS that really considers the needs of a modern school library. Our current system is so big it cannot be structured down in any manageable way. (Type: School)

We have an ILS administered by [...] - we contact only a representative of the [...] at the state library. They are the ones who contact the company when necessary. (Type: Public)

The BLUEcloud product line is increasingly impressive and competitive in the ILS market place. (Type: Public)

We are a life-long Sirsi Dynix customer, and we are very satisfied with their products and services. (Type: Public)

We are in an RFP process (Type: Academic)

If this consortium decides to migrate to a new ILS vendor, it is primarily going to be due to the public interface rather than dissatisfaction with the ILS/staff side. (Type: Consortium)

If we were to go to an open source solution it would have to be very robust and support an acquisitions module. The driving factor for us in reviewing what ILS will work for us is how easy it is for our patrons to use. Does it search our system fast and accurately. Does it pull up good results even when words are misspelled. Enterprise (our current catalog) has pulled up books on cats when we're looking for rats and is slow. We are part of a large consortium and so have a very large database of items but I still would like faster searching. (Type: Public)

WorkFlows functons fine most of the time. There are a few features that are a bit bulky or non-intuitive, but we have figured them out and we are a member of a larger library system that provides us with all of our tech support so we very rarely deal directly with SirsiDynex (Type: Public)

We are very satisfied with our SIRSI system. (Type: Public)

We were disappointed in their mobile app product so have released our own in-house designed product. Our in house product works on both iOS and Android - the vendor supplied one only worked on iOS. (Type: Public)

I like that the company is involving its customers more directly in the shape of future products with emphasis on the Strategic Partner Program and enhancement process. I also like that the Blue Cloud suite of products brings the Symphony and Horizon groups together. (Type: Public)

I'm afraid that some of my responses will be inaccurate because you do not have a n/a (not applicable) selection or "not sure." Because I do not work directly with SIRSI -- I work with Automation Support at the state level. The bottom line is this, I have been hired to support a variety of library users (many without formal training) with circulation software that is absolutely not designed by anyone who ever worked in a library. I'm no genius, but I have worked extensively with 3 other Circulation Software platforms. Sirsi Dynex is the worst by far. I've never seen a system in which the basic Collection Management functions of cataloging and item maintenance are summarily ignored and replaced by functions that are inaccurate and counterintuitive. Every day I just shake my head and say, "Who made this?" (Type: Consortium)

Have already begum migration to WMS for a Go-Live inJuly 2016 (Type: Academic)

When upgrading to Symphony we initially opted to implement BlueCloudPAC, which we used for several months. We were one of the first users, having implemented it within a few weeks of completion of beta testing. We finally asked to be switched back to an earlier version of Discovery Interface and are now using e-Library. BlueCloudPAC may eventually become a very useful product, but we found it to lack many essential functions, as well as having too high an error rate. Our opinion is that it needed more detailed development before being ready to launch. We have shared this feedback with SirsiDynix. (Type: Public)

I was not able to answer all of these questions due to the fact that the system was already in place when I took the job. (Type: School)

New Director and I am not sure of all the current issues. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix is implementing a cloud-based product called "BlueCloud." We're in the process of setting up this product. It should work simultaneously with Sirsi's Symphony product. The questions that I answered above are in response to the Symphony product. The BlueCloud products are not yet functional for our needs. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

Our library does not deal directly with Sirsi Dynix. All direct contact with the company comes from the Provincial Library. I can not respond to the questions on the customer support from Sirsi-Dynix. This situation also applies to decisions on new systems. I gave answers of 0, but prefer Not Applicable. Electronic resources (downloadable ebooks/audiobooks) are managed by OverDrive. Our Symphony record only shows whether we have it, one must logonto OverDrive to get the item's status. A direct link is given from our public catalogue. (Type: Public)

As with any product, having the support from all parties (i.e. Consortium, SirsiDynix Client Care, etc.) can only make your ILS function the way you desire. Giving feedbacks allows SD to improve their product and allows us to tailor the system the way we want it to work. (Type: Military)

We'd like to see better integration of the electronic and print resources. It's still cumbersome to manage. Overall, the customer service continues to improve. We are anxious to implement the Blue Cloud products and plan on that for 2016. (Type: Public)

ILS provided by consortium. Support provided only through consortium. Support has severe limitations only due to consortium, not necessarily ILS vendor. (Type: Public)

Standard reports are clumsy to use, as are some of the circulation staff functions. The ILS allows for a very broad range of configurations, but the setup seems complicated. Hosted ILS system response time is very good. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Public)

We are very glad to be migrating to Ex Libris Alma/Primo and look forward to evaluating that product next year. We are scheduled to go live with the new product the end of April but do not have a test or production envirorment at this time. (Type: Academic)

[...] has recently (June, 2014) become part of a consortium after having been a stand alone since 2004. The consortium leadership is tremendously knowledgeable. We can highly recommend Libraries of [...] as a high quality consortium. Our use of the functions in Sirsi Dynix Symphony Workflows has increased by 80-90%. (Type: Public)

Some of the responses above reflect the fact that we are part of a consortium with our local public library and have limited administrative privileges for our ILS. The ILS vendor is not helpful towards those who are part of a consortium. (Type: Academic)

[...] (Type: Public)

As we have just recently become automated, do not have a set opinion as pertains to this library. Am just happy we are now automated. (Type: Public)

[...] does not procure or utilize all of SIRSI's modules nor do we intend to because the solution in total does not meet our needs. For example most of our electronic resources are not managed by Symphony at all but are delivered directly though our open source discovery interfaces. However, Symphony does meet a portion of our requirements and is part of an overall architecture of systems that work together to serve our overall diverse needs. We aim to select the best tools to solve our problems so this architecture will evolve over time. The number above only reflects print volumes and electronic books. With the addition of journals, digitized content, media and manuscripts, this number comes to [...]. (Type: Academic)

The "One Card One Library" system for South Australia has been very successful and has been fully embraced by all libraries (Type: Public)

Support with current vendor has been frustrating over the last year because it is based in USA and the time difference has caused delays. (Type: Public)

[...] makes the decisions regarding our automation system. We are not able to make changes to the system. I do not feel that all of the features of the product are made available to us. We would like more control as a library and not have to go thru the consortium for reports, and features such as text notification to our patrons. (Type: Public)

SirisDynix's new BlueCloud platform is looking good, however the rollout seems slow and directed at public/uni libraries and often the needs of special libraries is over looked. But when we ask for functions to be turn off, or processes to be altered for our requirements, and security on our catalogue/discovery layer, SirisDynix and the software has proved to be very adaptable. (Type: Government Agency)

We are moving into a temporary location this year while our library undergoes major renovations, so no changes will be made to our ILS. We were thinking of switching to their Cloud option, but what was presented and the realities of the limitations of the product just doesn't work for us at this time. It is under consideration for when we return to our renovated space. We would love to consider an open source product, but until we have our own dedicated IT support person, this is just not possible. (Type: Public)