Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for WorldShare Management Services


2017 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 2 1 2 1 3 8 27 33 19 5 76.447
ILS Functionality101 2 1 3 2 3 12 18 28 28 4 76.437
Print Functionality100 1 2 3 5 9 7 22 33 18 87.008
Electronic Functionality100 2 1 3 2 7 8 19 27 24 7 76.397
Company Satisfaction100 2 1 1 2 1 9 18 28 22 16 76.827
Support Satisfaction101 3 1 2 2 1 10 17 26 25 14 76.687
Support Improvement99 4 2 3 10 24 17 12 17 10 55.916
Company Loyalty98 5 2 3 4 2 10 9 19 21 23 96.537
Open Source Interest101 40 12 18 7 6 9 2 1 2 4 02.071

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS103 76.80%
Considering new Interface103 65.83%
System Installed on time?103 9188.35%

Average Collection size: 350691

TypeCount
Public1
Academic79
School2
Consortium1
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00035
[3] 100,001-250,00025
[4] 250,001-1,000,00031
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0006
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction134 2 1 3 5 4 9 20 40 33 17 76.727
ILS Functionality134 1 2 4 5 5 11 18 43 34 11 76.577
Print Functionality135 1 2 1 1 8 20 30 50 22 87.268
Electronic Functionality133 3 2 2 7 6 12 18 35 38 10 86.457
Company Satisfaction135 1 5 3 4 7 20 25 43 27 87.068
Support Satisfaction134 1 2 5 2 3 7 17 29 43 25 87.018
Support Improvement128 2 1 6 7 29 11 17 23 32 96.637
Company Loyalty133 7 2 4 1 4 13 7 19 32 44 96.928
Open Source Interest132 56 24 21 6 4 8 7 2 1 3 01.751

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS135 85.93%
Considering new Interface135 85.93%
System Installed on time?135 12693.33%

Average Collection size: 350815

TypeCount
Public4
Academic102
School1
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00050
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[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.

WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS946.94 347.09296.9396.3320011
ILSFunctionality946.43 346.59296.2495.5620011
PrintFunctionality947.17 347.44297.1496.5620011
ElectronicFunctionality936.58 336.61296.5996.1120011
SatisfactionCustomerSupport937.08 347.09297.1087.1320011
CompanyLoyalty927.13 337.36297.6996.3320011



2015 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction94 2 1 2 10 12 28 30 9 86.947
ILS Functionality94 2 2 3 7 9 19 23 20 9 76.437
Print Functionality94 2 1 8 14 24 29 16 87.177
Electronic Functionality93 3 1 1 6 11 15 20 29 7 86.587
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 3 3 12 20 34 19 87.318
Support Satisfaction93 3 1 6 3 14 17 31 18 87.088
Support Improvement89 1 2 9 18 14 16 14 15 56.427
Company Loyalty92 2 1 1 4 5 4 6 17 22 30 97.138
Open Source Interest92 45 17 14 2 1 5 3 2 3 01.511

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS95 33.16%
Considering new Interface95 44.21%
System Installed on time?95 8892.63%

Average Collection size: 424304

TypeCount
Public2
Academic75
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00022
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 2 1 3 10 28 22 4 76.887
ILS Functionality71 1 2 3 8 12 31 11 3 76.517
Print Functionality70 1 1 1 4 8 15 33 7 87.218
Electronic Functionality70 1 1 1 7 10 20 23 7 86.937
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 1 1 6 15 34 11 87.398
Support Satisfaction71 2 1 3 8 19 18 20 97.448
Support Improvement69 2 2 13 9 14 17 12 86.867
Company Loyalty73 1 1 1 2 1 4 15 23 25 97.598
Open Source Interest71 36 15 3 9 4 1 2 1 01.280

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS74 34.05%
Considering new Interface74 68.11%
System Installed on time?74 6689.19%

Average Collection size: 444490

TypeCount
Public4
Academic56
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00018
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 2 1 5 2 10 6 5 76.777
ILS Functionality31 3 3 2 4 5 8 3 3 75.816
Print Functionality30 1 1 2 4 2 6 8 6 86.807
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 4 2 1 7 8 6 86.687
Company Satisfaction30 1 5 3 3 8 10 97.378
Support Satisfaction31 1 1 4 4 7 7 7 77.007
Support Improvement31 1 10 3 4 7 6 56.777
Company Loyalty30 1 1 1 4 1 2 7 13 97.338
Open Source Interest30 15 3 1 4 2 4 1 01.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 13.13%
Considering new Interface32 13.13%
System Installed on time?32 2475.00%

Average Collection size: 260399

TypeCount
Public2
Academic25
School1
Consortium0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,00013
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction21 1 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 76.387
ILS Functionality21 2 2 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.486
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 86.768
Support Satisfaction21 2 3 1 1 4 3 7 96.627
Support Improvement20 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 96.707
Company Loyalty21 2 1 1 4 5 8 96.958
Open Source Interest21 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 12.522

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS22 00.00%
Considering new Interface22 00.00%
System Installed on time?22 1777.27%

Average Collection size: 316875

TypeCount
Public0
Academic21
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0006
[3] 100,001-250,0009
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 2 4 3 1 77.107
ILS Functionality10 1 1 2 2 3 1 75.205
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 2 1 6 98.209
Support Satisfaction10 1 1 3 5 98.209
Support Improvement9 2 1 2 4 97.568
Company Loyalty10 1 1 3 5 98.009
Open Source Interest10 5 3 2 00.701

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

Average Collection size: 392232

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special1

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


0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2010

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2009

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2008

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2007

2017 : gen: 6.44 company 6.82 loyalty 6.53 support 6.68

2016 : gen: 6.72 company 7.06 loyalty 6.92 support 7.01

2015 : gen: 6.94 company 7.31 loyalty 7.13 support 7.08

2014 : gen: 6.88 company 7.39 loyalty 7.59 support 7.44

2013 : gen: 6.77 company 7.37 loyalty 7.33 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.38 company 6.76 loyalty 6.95 support 6.62

2011 : gen: 7.10 company 8.20 loyalty 8.00 support 8.20

Comments

Our library collection is much closer to 550,000 thanks to our ILS that provides linking to all of that content. (Type: Academic)

OCLC WMS provides relatively high functionality for bibliographic and discovery at an affordable price and operates with very few professional staff.... (Type: Special)

We purchased WMS Discovery. We also joined Navigator, the shared catalog product. Though they are both owned by OCLC they are not compatible - something we were NOT told at time of purchase. Further, we purchased the enhanced analytics system, but recently learned they FORGOT to install it. This was not evident because the options controlled by that system were simply invisible. We received a refund for one year of the purchase price of this product last week. Our director, who only uses the public interface, really likes the catalog. The rest of us HATE it. It lacks simple functionality in several areas, is not intuitive for users, has serious ranking and display issues, and about the only good things we can say are that it looks pretty and is cloud based, thus eliminating the need for backups. (Type: )

OCLC has had a lot of down time this year, which is new for them, but doesn't inspire much confidence. (Type: Academic)

We just migrated from Innovative's Sierra to OCLC's WorldShare Management Systems several months ago. We knew we would lose a lot of the functionality we had in Sierra, but I'm surprised that OCLC's product -- although relatively young -- is still so underdeveloped (for example, Course Reserves is just now being implemented -- and not very well-- in WorldCat Discovery). We also continue to deal with multiple catalog and linking problems. While OCLC has a lot of training resources, those resources are not updated quickly enough after changes are made to the system, and actual documentation on using WMS is sorely lacking. (Type: Academic)

Although there are still some areas where OCLC WorldShare Management Services/Discovery could be improved, OCLC is constantly adding features and fixing bugs. Also, their customer support is very responsive, and they have many training materials available for free. There's always room for improvement, but in this case, not much room--they're doing nearly everything already. (Type: Theology)

I'm new to the Library and I don't know the answers to some of these questions, but [...] s migrating to Alma and there is discussion of the [..] will do the same. (Type: Academic)

OCLC is aware that they needed to revamp their customer service processes and I have been informed that this is something they are working on and that it is a high priority issue. Overall customer service if not reporting an issue is okay, but responsiveness to queries sent to specific staff at OCLC is not always timely. I firmly believe that OCLC will resolve any customer service issues. (Type: Special)

Very integrated product; much less expensive than our former system; easy to use, and easy to train others; pace of improvements of interest to our library seems to be in a lull at the moment, still need a few features for fully efficient operation. Most features we initially wanted have now been implemented. (Type: Academic)

We would be forced to consider OCLC again if we migrated to another system because of cost constraints. While the vision that OCLC puts forth for its products is headed in the right direction, the software has a LONG way to go before it covers all of the "usual" functionality expectations a library has for its ILS. Technical support is VERY inconsistent. Sometimes I receive answers the same day, other times it takes months. And often, I don't receive follow up unless I "poke" them periodically. We currently use WorldCat Local with plans to transition to WorldCat Discovery summer of 2016. While we do consider this "our discovery product," it does NOT work effectively at this time. The relevancy ranking algorithm is very poor at this point. (Type: Academic)

We anticipate working with OCLC Worldshare Mangement System for the forseeable future. We are a very small staff and do not have the knowledge or staff time to consider an open source product. (Type: Academic)

Very pleased with WMS, though still struggling with OpenURL resolver, which does not appear to be fully compliant with standards. KB is not that bad -- it's a big job keeping up with vendors. Looking forward to Discovery next year. (Type: Academic)

OCLC is still learning how to be a good ILS vendor, but the cooperative business model reduces some of the very negative, profit-driven aspects of commercial vendors owned by venture capitalists. Overall, OCLC has been good to work with and the WMS product is continuing to mature in good directions. (Type: Academic)

We continue to be extremely satisfied with our decision to implement WMS, and have been pleased with the OCLC's responsiveness to library needs as development continues. Where we are less than completely satisfied with functionality, we are still extremely satisfied with the pace of improvement and added features. (Type: Academic)

WorldCat is powerful. WMS integrates nicely with it. (Type: Academic)

While OCLC is very service oriented, it seems as if recently there has been significant turnover and re-organization that has happened often. This is likely the cause of a perception of lower service. Their foray into the cloud is also very new. There is concern that they are growing too quickly with new customers on WMS but not resolving the changes needed for their existing customers. Speed, consistent interface design, and training/documentation seem to have taken a hit. I expected a better roll out of the Report Designer tool and the COUNTER harvesting tool. These tools seem to have been provided pre-maturely either due to a lack of full training materials and documentation, or have not been fully developed and tested such that they are not useful yet. (Type: Academic)

Currently we are finishing the migration process from Innovative's Sierra to OCLC's WMS. We decided to move from Innovative because of system security issues with the Innovative software. We were impressed by the cooperative nature of WMS and the reduction in duplicate work. WMS doesn't have all the functionality that Sierra has, but is evolving very quickly and we anticipate it meeting our needs. (Type: Academic)

We appreciate the cooperative aspect of OCLC and their genuinely listening to what libraries need and delivering at a price point libraries can afford. We hope for improvements to the WMS system, especially in the area of the knowledge base and e-resources management. We would also like to see group-aware features and usability improvements to WorldCat Discovery. However, we are pleased with the development progress already made. Our library is operating well with current functionality. Uptime and dependability of hosted systems this past year has been less than expected and is/should be OCLC's top concern. (Type: Academic)

OCLC is very responsive to service problems and is very open to communication about it. We are very pleased with their response and communication. However, the search interface for WMS/Discovery is not very good yet; too many results and not easy to narrow down. They are working on improvements to the interface. (Type: Academic)

[...] switched from III Millennium to OCLC WMS in July of 2015. III simply priced itself so high for needed upgrades that we were forced to investigate other options. WMS has been a huge disappointment to those of us in Technical Services. The serials and acquisitions functionality is VERY limited. OCLC appears to have purchased Navigator from another company and is unable at present to make it function with their discovery system, forcing us to remain on their older system, WorldCat local - which they are no longer updating. This situation results in our having to invent work-arounds for many desired functions. Though we have requested a time-line for resolution to the Navigator/Discovery programming situation many times, no answer is forthcoming. (Type: Academic)

WorldShare is a new "next generation" system and as such does not yet have all of the functionality of the older more mature systems. This said, the enhancement roadmap is very comprehensive and there is a lot that is being implemented, and as this is a cloud based system, the library does not have to do the upgrades. By migrating to a system that hangs off the global bib record we have been able to implement massive back end workflow efficiencies, and we are able to work collaboratively with other libraries even though we are not part of a consortia. Moving to WorldShare has also firmly positioned us in the emerging semantic linked data ecosystem. With WorldShare we are the first library to start adding the machine readable Australian curriculum metadata that was registered by the Library of Congress in November 2015 https://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/curriculum-objective.html. WorldShare gives superior reporting, patrons find it easier to use, and it has enabled us to integrate our library collections into Google and GoodReads. (Type: School)

It is the perception of some colleagues and me that the link resolver capabilities of the system need improving. Sometimes items that should be linked are not linked, other times links lead to the wrong item, and sometimes items that should not be linked are linked. There is not a 100% match of what is held in prescribed databases and what is represented in the knowledgebase. For this reason we cannot totally rely on the WMS A-Z list. We must continue to pay for and use Serial Solutions 360 link in addition to the WMS A-Z list/knowledgbase/collection manager. (Type: Academic)

Overall staff find WMS easy to use and easy to train people on. The main criticism that staff have voiced is the fact that we cannot change certain default settings (especially in the acquisitions module) that seem to be geared toward larger multi-site library systems. (Type: Academic)

Regarding vendor supports, OCLC's establishment of the user community this year has been a valuable addition to their services platform. The ability we now have to participate in threaded discussions around WMS/WS Discovery/WS ILL issues has greatly improved our effectiveness. The reorganization of support documentation and video training within the community portal is also appreciated. The addition of hosted EZ Proxy to this community is welcome, as well. (Type: Academic)

Does number of items include print and electronic resources? And is there a distinction between owned electronic items and subscribed items? The above number is from the OCLC Analytics module, total holdings for my library. Not sure if I used this number last year. Apologies if it's not useful. (Type: Academic)

Migrated to WMS & Discovery in summer of 2015. (Type: Theology)

We continue to weed print items so how our ILS handles digital materials is becoming more important every year. We LOVE the analytics we now can access using the WMS add-on that we purchased. (Type: Academic)

We would not use an open source ILS only because we do not have the staff to manage it. (Type: Academic)

Since we are new with OCLC Worldshare, we still learning daily about the capabilities of the system. There have been a few issues with the search capabilities through Discovery, however we are optimistic that OCLC will work through the glitches of this new product. (Type: Academic)

June 2015 migrated from WC Local to WC Discovery. The discovery system as well as the WorldShare ILS continue to develop. Their potential surpasses earlier generation systems, although enhancements can be frustratingly slow. (Type: Academic)

Our library is transitioning from Voyager to World Share Management Services. The transition is not complete so I am unable to answer the questions above until we have more experince with the system and the company. (Type: Academic)

There is no perfect ILS and I feel that we have to be a part of the solution by migrating to a system with potential. I am somewhat happy with my ILS system and vendor and think the service can only get better or at least I am optomistic in that regard. The new system is different in a good way so when comparing the two it is not apples to apples. Thanks for your work! (Type: Academic)

WMS not quite ready for larger academic libraries. Kind of like living in a house that is still being built around us. There are some OpenURL linking issues; the vendor has been responsive to our complaints and suggestions but it is not completely resolved. Worldcat Discovery was released too early; we believe more development was needed--functions like relevancy in the results and the need for more facet options need improvement, as well as allowing patrons to do more on their accounts. eResource management is much better than our old ILS (the old one simply did not support it). eResource workflow management functionality in WMS is still very rudimentary; we continue to rely on a hodgepodge set of various tools and systems (i.e excel spreedsheets, LibAnswers, eResource email, Trello). The new reporting system is quite good but there is a small learning curve. Circulation works reliably, authentication with our campus system is seamless, and more info is at your fingertips. Managing WMS in the cloud is much more streamlined than the old systems but has potential to be great if improved. (Type: Academic)

Lately I feel that OCLC has rolled things out that should have stayed in development longer. Particularly with WorldCat Discovery. (Type: Theology)

OCLC has been very responsive to our suggestions and requests for improvements. (Type: Academic)

ILS