Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary


Perceptions 2016: An International Survey of Library Automation

by , January 25, 2017.

This tenth edition of the International Survey of Library Automation aims to provide a candid glimpse into the effectiveness of strategic library technology systems from the perspective of the libraries which use them for their daily operations and to fulfill the expectations of their patrons. It focuses primarily on integrated library systems and library services platforms as the applications libraries use to acquire, describe, manage, and provide access to their collections.

2016 the International Survey of Library Automation
This report is an original publication
of Library Technology Guides.

4042 libraries completed this year’s survey, providing sufficient data to focus the analysis more on each category of library type and size rather than aggregating across all responses. The functional requirements of public, academic, school, and other types of libraries overlap to a certain extent, but in other areas have distinctive if not contradictory functionality. Some of the products represented in the survey have been designed for specific sectors. For those used by multiple types of libraries, the analysis of the survey results by size and type of organization provides an opportunity to observe any differences in satisfaction across these categories.

Some interesting themes can be seen in the analysis of this year’s survey results. Libraries which have implemented new library services platforms such as WorldShare Management Services and Alma are putting them through their paces and report both success and frustrations. Well-established integrated library systems serve very large number of libraries, mostly with strong acceptance. An increasing number of libraries using legacy products have either moved to new systems or indicate readiness to do so. Products such as Aleph, Voyager, and Millennium increasingly are perceived as not fulfilling libraries expectations in managing both electronic and print resources. Open source products achieve satisfaction levels similar to proprietary products. Results indicate a tendency for libraries at least consider products offered by their incumbent vendor. Smaller libraries show much more delight with their products and vendors. Large libraries judge on a much more severe scale. These differing levels of expectations make it vital to segment results in a way that presents more meaningful comparisons.

I sincerely appreciate the time given by all the libraries that responded to the survey this year and in its previous iterations. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to explore as they consider their options regarding these strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a massive aggregation of that kind of data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.

Table of Contents



Introduction

top

Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

The 2017 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 4042 libraries from 92 countries describing experiences with 138 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey results include 1,062 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

View the narrative comments given by responders
Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
Alma from Ex Libris led as the top performer among large and mid-sized academic libraries for overall functionality, effectiveness in managing electronic resources, and company loyalty and for mid-sized accademics for overall functionality, effectiveness in managing electronic resources, company loyalty.
WorldShare from OCLC led in general satisfaction for mid-sized academics and for electronic resource management for small academics.
Polaris received top rankings among large public libraries for general satisfaction, overall functionality, print resource management, and electronic resource management.
Apollo from Biblionix was the top performer among very small public libraries all categories and among small publics for all categories except for company loyalty.
Symphony from SirsiDynix received top scores among large public libraries for customer support and for company loyalty and in customer support for mid-sized academics.
OPALS received highest scores in all categories among school libraries.
Library.Solution earned highest ratings for mid-sized public libraries for general satisfaction and overall ILS functionality.
ByWater Solutions, providing services for Koha, earned highest scores from mid-sized public libraries for its in management of electronic resources and satisfaction with customer support and fromsmall public libraries for company loyalty.

Previous editions: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

top

The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].

Caveats

top

Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

Constructive criticism

top

The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

Survey Response Demographics

top

Collection Size Categories
countMoreLess
462010,000
1,30810,00150,000
48450,001100,000
560100,001250,000
385250,001500,000
280500,0011,000,000
3721,000,00110,000,000
2310,000,001
168No collection size data
4,042Total of Categories

This year, the survey attracted 4,042 responses from libraries in 92 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (3,026 responses), followed by Canada (232), Australia (141), United Kingdom (112), Spain (48), Sweden (41), and New Zealand (34). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.

While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (48), Argentina (14), Chile (7), Colombia (14), Mexico (7), Venezuela (3), Uruguay (6), and Ecuador (4). A total of 1,206 of the 4,042 total responses (29.8 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 4,042 responses: ( 2015=3,453; 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 26,604 responses. The survey was open between November 3, 2016 and January 18, 2016.

There were 168 of the 4,042 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.

Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,547 responses, followed by academic libraries with 1,156. This year 789 responses came from school libraries.

The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:

General Information about the Survey

top

productcountreport
Destiny621ils report
Symphony436ils report
Sierra432ils report
OPALS220ils report
Polaris219ils report
Alma161ils report
Millennium144ils report
WorldShare Management Services134ils report
ALEPH 500130ils report
Koha -- ByWater Solutions125ils report
Voyager117ils report
Apollo106ils report
Atriuum102ils report
Horizon98ils report
Library.Solution97ils report
AGent VERSO90ils report
Koha -- Independent77ils report
Evergreen -- Equinox Software73ils report
Spydus45ils report
Evergreen -- Independent33ils report
EOS.Web32ils report
Koha -- LibLime31ils report
None28ils report
Unknown27ils report
LibraryWorld26ils report
Virtua21ils report
Alexandria20ils report

The survey attracted responses from libraries using 138 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author.

This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.


Survey Results

top

The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.

Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS
Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7% 55.3% 64.6%
Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9%
Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2% 34.9% 28.6%
Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8% 18.3% 12.4%
Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9% 65.5% 75.0%
Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3% 7.9% 7.3%
Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.2% 5.8% 10.8% 12.9% 13.4%
Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8% 18.0% 18.6%
Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.5% 69.2% 66.7%

Note: The percentage of libraries indicating they are considering migration increased for Millennium, Aleph, and Voyager when those companies began promoting their next-generation products.

In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (197), WorldShare Management Services (114), Sierra (98), Koha (88), Symphony (62), and FOLIO (41). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 273 mentioned Koha, 87 mentioned FOLIO, 84 mentioned Evergreen, and 4 mentioned Invenio.

The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

Current ILS Responses Shopping Percent Academic Alma WorldShare Polaris Sierra Symphony FOLIO Koha Evergreen Kuali
ALEPH 500 130 84 64.6 68 481606212801
Horizon 98 28 28.6 8 234490610
Library.Solution 97 12 12.4 4 130120420
Millennium 144 108 75.0 82 3725342961120
Sierra 432 58 13.4 36 23155475940
Polaris 219 16 7.3 5 021211110
Symphony 436 81 18.6 44 2120913103721
Voyager 117 78 66.7 63 411701479920
Amlib 14 8 57.1 0 000050000
Any Product 1971142798624188232

Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

International Perspective

top

The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,016 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

productTotal responsesUnited StatesInternational
All Products4,0423,0261,016
Symphony436300136
Horizon996930
Sierra44334598
Millennium14410638
Polaris21919821
Aleph1305773
Voyager1179126
Alma1619665
Axiell Aurora12012
WorldShare Management Services13411618
Absys.Net18018

top

Innovative company profile

Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, including Sierra, Polaris, and Virtua. Its Millennium ILS, the predecessor to Sierra continues to be widely used. The company is active in almost all global regions. Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 430 from libraries using Sierra, 216 using Polaris, 144 using Millennium, and 21 using Virtua, or 811 in total. Innovative saw a change of ownership in Mar 2012 and subsequently acquired Polaris (Mar 2014) and VTLS (Jun 2014).

Sierra

top

Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 430 libraries, including 193 academic libraries, 169 publics, 28 consortia and 5 special libraries. Although loyalty scores were weak overall (5.52), large publics (4.58) showed the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support has declined from 7.96 in 2012 to 5.17 last year, but increased to 5.26 this year. General satisfaction increased slightly over last year up to 6.23 from 6.18. 58 out of the 433 responses (13.4%) indicated interest in moving from Sierra to a new system.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4306.23 726.63756.04436.33906.29625.84125.423286.39
ILSFunctionality4286.43 716.73746.26436.16906.54626.32126.003286.43
PrintFunctionality4277.16 717.55757.27437.56886.83626.79127.083287.14
ElectronicFunctionality4245.29 695.46755.15435.60895.06625.08115.823275.04
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4265.26 716.03755.03435.63895.51604.63123.503284.79
CompanyLoyalty4245.52 715.94735.04435.30895.66605.27124.583286.04

Millennium

top

A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type). The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 458 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. Out of the 144 libraries which responded this year, 107 indicated interest in moving to a new system. The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra, to 56.9% in 2015, to 74.3% this year. Migration options mentioned included Sierra (42), followed by Alma (37), WorldShare Management Services (25), Koha (11), Symphony (9), and FOLIO (6). While Innovative has seen positive results in positioning Sierra as the migration path for Millennium, many are also considering competing products.

The number of public libraries using Millennium has declined such the responses recieved in this category to were below the threshold be included in the statistical tables.

Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady to rising ratings from 2007 through 2010, with decreasing responses subsequently. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77, 2016: 5.14).

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

MillenniumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1445.14 405.28424.95214.3394.335325
ILSFunctionality1445.31 405.78425.21213.7694.895325
PrintFunctionality1446.90 406.97426.83216.9095.785325
ElectronicFunctionality1434.16 394.67424.17212.5294.445325
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1434.59 404.72414.20213.3894.445325
CompanyLoyalty1424.66 404.15414.71214.1995.225315

Polaris

top

Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 216 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in for general satisfaction (7.76), overall functionality (7.40), print resource management (7.68). Although Polaris led in scores for electronic resource management (6.08) relative to competing products, the overall level of scores in this category of electronic resource management was substantially lower than others.

From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings. From 2012 through 2015, ratings for Polaris have declined in all categories. This year ratings in each category saw noticable improvement.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2167.35 147.21201207.35427.52128.004157.60
ILSFunctionality2187.25 156.80201217.37427.40127.504157.47
PrintFunctionality2137.72 147.79201187.77417.78127.584158.00
ElectronicFunctionality2126.30 154.93201166.52416.51125.674156.60
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2126.96 156.73201166.86427.31127.753157.00
CompanyLoyalty2136.75 137.31201186.69427.14127.004156.80

Virtua

top

This year 21 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. About half (10 out of 21) of these libraries indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Though the number of responses was too low for confident results, the ratings for general satisfaction, and company satisfaction were up from last year, though still significantly down from those seen in 2013 when satisfaction in all categories was at its peak. This year company loyalty dramatically increased (6.00) from the last year's rating (4.57) indicating stronger interest in moving to another ILS product from Innovative.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

VirtuaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS216.33 3286.8801010
ILSFunctionality216.57 3286.7501010
PrintFunctionality217.52 3287.8801010
ElectronicFunctionality214.48 3283.8801010
SatisfactionCustomerSupport206.25 3286.2500010
CompanyLoyalty216.00 3286.7501010

Ex Libris company profile

Ex Libris

top

Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform, as well as Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems. This year 161 libraries using Alma, 130 using Aleph, and 117 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 408 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015.

The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be large and complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings as seen in products that serve larger libraries. The perceptions of customer support from Ex Libris are moderate this year.

Alma

top

Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among large academic libraries for for general ILS satisfaction (6.69), overall ILS functionality (6.73), effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.76), and company loyalty (7.24). These libraries rated the print functionality (6.93) below that of Aleph (7.67), Symphony (7.64), Sierra (7.56) and Voyager (7.19). This lower rating for print functionality did not deter libraries from giving Alma the higest rating for overall functionality, reflecing the higher priority in managing electronic resources. Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest in the category of Overall ILS functionality (6.90), effectiveness in managing electronic resources (7.04), company loyalty (7.10).

Alma was not rated as positively among small academic libraries. Its ragings were in the lower third of the pack, except in the category relating to the management of electronic resources, where it placed second (6.48), just below WorldShare Management Services (6.58).

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1576.53 306.37546.59456.6900004
ILSFunctionality1576.70 306.53546.87456.7300004
PrintFunctionality1576.85 306.90546.87456.9300004
ElectronicFunctionality1536.80 296.48536.98456.7600004
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1566.27 306.03536.45456.4900004
CompanyLoyalty1556.88 286.29547.04457.2400004

Voyager

top

Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials. Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (6.81) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (3.58). Large academics gave Voyager low ratings in most categories except for company loyalty (6.92), where it placed just below Alma (7.24); mid-sized academics (6.00) and small academics (6.27) indicated weaker company loyalty. Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (68.3%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned Alma among the candidate replacements (41). Others mentioned included WorldShare Management Services (17), Sierra (14), FOLIO (9), and Koha (9).

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

VoyagerallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1175.58 335.55304.73266.0800004
ILSFunctionality1165.47 335.64294.79265.3800004
PrintFunctionality1176.81 336.36306.43267.1900004
ElectronicFunctionality1153.58 323.47303.07263.7700004
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1126.03 305.83295.34266.6200004
CompanyLoyalty1166.38 336.27296.07266.9200004

Aleph

top

Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.

Large academic libraries using Aleph gave Ex Libris top ratings in the categories of customer support (7.13) and print functionality (7.67). Ratings in all categories improved slightly since last year.

64.4 percent of libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Large academic libraries using Aleph gave moderately positive ratings for company loyalty (6.77). Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (48), WorldShare Management Services (16), FOLIO (12), and Sierra (6). All these statistics can be seen as relatively good news to Ex Libris regarding whether Aleph libraries will stay within the fold and eventually move to Alma.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

ALEPH 500allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1295.95 285.32356.00306.4376.571113
ILSFunctionality1295.85 285.21355.86306.0776.861113
PrintFunctionality1286.96 286.32347.32307.6776.711113
ElectronicFunctionality1263.71 273.37353.77303.5773.861113
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1276.20 265.00356.11307.1377.571113
CompanyLoyalty1276.44 276.70346.68306.7776.571113

OCLC company profile

OCLC

top

OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. Relevant to this report, OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service. The organization also supports multiple legacy ILS products, including Amlib. This year 133 libraries using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey as well as 14 using Amlib.

WorldShare Management Services

top

A total of 133 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) all responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries, except for 3 public libraries, 1 school, and 1 consortium.

Mid-sized academics gave Worldshare Management Services top ratings in general satisfaction (6.76); small academics gave it highest ratings for electronic resource management for (6.58). These libraries gave almost identical rankings to WorldShare (7.10) and Alma (7.09) for company loyalty. When segmented by collection size, mid-sized academics gave higher ratings (6.83) than small (6.78) or large (6.29) academic libraries. WorldShare Management System did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic category statistics tables.

From 2012 through 2015 ratings gradually increased, except for a minor dip in support and loyalty. Relative to last year, 2016 rankings were slightly down.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1336.70 516.78416.8376.2930011
ILSFunctionality1336.55 506.78426.4576.1430011
PrintFunctionality1347.25 517.35427.2176.7130011
ElectronicFunctionality1326.43 506.58426.5576.0030011
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1336.99 517.24426.9377.2930011
CompanyLoyalty1326.91 517.12427.0776.7120011

Amlib

top

This year’s survey included 14 responses from libraries using Amlib (full product report and narrative comments), an integrated library system also supported by OCLC. Its ratings appeared on only a small number of statistics tables since the number of responses fall below the threshold. The product did appear in the tables that aggregated all responses for public libraries. Consistent with its status as a legacy system, supported but without forward development, ratings have been steadily declining since 2009.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

AmliballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS144.79 000134.690000
ILSFunctionality134.54 000134.540000
PrintFunctionality125.17 000125.170000
ElectronicFunctionality132.54 000132.540000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport145.21 000135.150000
CompanyLoyalty143.21 000133.000000

SirsiDynix company profile

SirsiDynix

top

SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.

This year 431 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 98 libraries using Horizon and 32 using EOS.Web completed responses.

Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008, but have improved every year since. Looking at this trend demonstrates that while there may be negative fallout following a business event, that a company can work to improve its perceptions over time. The ownership of SirsiDynix changed again in December 2014 with its acquisition by ICV Partners. This first year since that transition saw continued movement upward in perceptions scores for Symphony, even more dramatic improvement for Horizon, but a drop in perceptions ratings for EOS.Web.

Symphony

top

SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.

Mid-sized academics rated Symphony highest in satiation for customer support (7.05). large public libraries gave Symphony top scores for customer support (7.52) and for company loyalty (7.34). Sympony receives its strongest ratings for satisfaction with print functionality (consortia: 8.17; large academic: 7.64; large public: 6.47; mid-sized public 7.62). Weakest scores were given for its functionality for electronic resources (large academic: 5.50; mid-sized academic: 4.74; consortia: 6.70; large public: 5.25). Consortia using Symphony gave SirsiDynix very strong loyalty scores (8.16); loyalty was weaker for academic libraries (large: 6.24; mid-sized: 5.79; small: 5.97) than publics (large: 7.18; mid-sized: 7.06; small: 6.69).

18.6 percent of libraries (81 out of 436 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 44 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Alma (21), WorldShare Management Services (20), Sierra (13), Polaris (9), FOLIO (9), Koha (9). 10 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.

SirsiDynix Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4316.79 686.24396.28226.451566.85537.23176.88157.60247.54
ILSFunctionality4316.82 686.60396.38226.271566.85537.08176.88157.33247.75
PrintFunctionality4267.32 677.16387.16227.641557.14527.62176.47158.07248.17
ElectronicFunctionality4225.74 675.07394.74225.501516.01526.12165.25156.60236.70
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4187.11 676.78397.03226.731467.05527.25177.35157.60248.13
CompanyLoyalty4256.64 675.97385.79216.241536.69537.06177.18147.43258.16

Horizon

top

Libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), continue to show less interest in changing systems, apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term. Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, is the only legacy system showing decreased numbers in libraries considering migrating to a new system (see selection/deselection report). This year 28 out of 99 (28.6%) responses indicated interest in change, less than the 34.9% seen last year, and dramaticly less than in 2008 when 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. Of those libraries indicating interest in mmoving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Symphony (9), Koha (6 ), Sierra (4), Polaris (4), WorldShare Management Services (3), Alma (2), and Evergreen (1).

This year Horizon received top scores for customer support by small academic libraries (7.85). Horizon received higher scores in general satasfaction from public libraries (mid-sized: 7.00) than from academics (mid-sized: 6.22). Small academic libraries using Horizon expressed stronger loyalty to SirsiDynix (7.31) than mid-sized academics (5.33); consortia were most loyal (7.67); public librares were in between (large: 6.89). Mid-sized academics gave Horizon higher scores in print functionality (7.89) and lowest for electronic resource functionality (4.11). All types of libraries using Horizon gave SirsiDynix relatively stong scores for customer support (small academic: 7.85; mid-sized public: 7.50; consortia: 7.33).

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS976.76 136.7796.222237.04227.0096.56266.83
ILSFunctionality996.56 137.0895.332246.58226.7796.33267.00
PrintFunctionality997.49 137.6297.892247.38227.8296.56268.00
ElectronicFunctionality975.11 125.5094.112245.42224.7795.11266.50
SatisfactionCustomerSupport977.22 137.8586.252247.33227.5096.44267.33
CompanyLoyalty996.55 137.3195.332246.67226.8696.89267.67

EOS.Web

top

EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 33 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. In almost all categories, ratings for EOS.Web have been declining since 2011, a year when this product received its best scores. Libraries gave EOS.Web stronger scores in 2015, but this year saw a drop in scores. Libraries using EOS.Web give higher ratings for print functionality (7.16) than for electronic (5.77). Its highest ratings were given for customer support (7.53). Of the 32 responses, 6 (18.8%) indicated interest in migrating to a new system.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

EOS.WeballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS326.84 85.250010000
ILSFunctionality326.63 85.000010000
PrintFunctionality317.16 86.000010000
ElectronicFunctionality305.77 84.250010000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport327.53 85.880010000
CompanyLoyalty326.56 84.880010000

The Library Corporation company profile

The Library Corporation

top

The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 97 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 9 for libraries using Carl.X.

Library.Solution

top

Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries performed best in the mid-sized public library arena, from whom it received top ratings for general satisfaction (7.63) and overall ILS functionality (7.67). In most categories, Library.Solution received lower ratings this year than in 2015. Small public libraries gave The Library Corporation higher ratings for customer support (7.67); Mid-sized publi libraries rated functionality for electronic resource functionality as weaker (6.11) than for print (7.44). 12 out of the 97 respnoses (12.4%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS957.16 96.3330567.2997.110127.580
ILSFunctionality957.19 96.7830567.3697.220127.170
PrintFunctionality957.28 97.0030567.1897.440127.670
ElectronicFunctionality946.30 95.2230556.6096.110126.330
SatisfactionCustomerSupport927.58 86.8830547.6797.220128.080
CompanyLoyalty906.70 96.7830536.6297.000107.600

Carl.X

top

Carl.x (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 9 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X were substantially higher this year than those given in 2015 and better than any previous year. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation higher scores in company loyalty than any other category.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

Carl.XallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS97.22 00032301
ILSFunctionality96.44 00032301
PrintFunctionality86.88 00022301
ElectronicFunctionality85.88 00022301
SatisfactionCustomerSupport86.75 00022301
CompanyLoyalty87.63 00022301

Biblionix company profile

Biblionix

top

Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 106 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

Apollo

top

Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections. Apollo was the top performer among small public libraries: general satisfaction (8.40), overall functionality (8.24), print resource management (8.26), electronic resource management (8.00), customer support (8.63). It also topped the tables among very small public libraries for general satisfaction (8.57), overall ILS functionality (8.40), print resource management (8.50), electronic resource management (8.21), customer support (8.41), and company loyalty (8.13). This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. It received top scores in all categories by very small public libraries. The only category in which Apollo did not lead among small public libraries was loyalty to company question, in which ByWater Solutions received a higher score (8.20 vs 7.88). Within the realm of small and very small public libraries, Apollo has exceptionally happy customers.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

ApolloallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1028.50 0001018.500000
ILSFunctionality1038.33 0001028.320000
PrintFunctionality1038.42 0001028.410000
ElectronicFunctionality1038.13 0001028.120000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1028.47 0001018.470000
CompanyLoyalty1028.07 0001018.060000

Book Systems company profile

Book Systems, Inc.

top

Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.

Atriuum

This year 102 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; 89 were from small public libraries and 6 from school libraries. The company earned its strongest ratings in customer support (8.08); in this category School libraries (8.67) gave Atriuum slightly better scores than the small publics 7.99). Since 2007 ratings across categories have been improving fairly steadily.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

AtriuumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1017.91 000887.821068.330
ILSFunctionality1017.79 000887.681068.670
PrintFunctionality977.98 000847.881068.670
ElectronicFunctionality976.77 000856.541068.500
SatisfactionCustomerSupport998.08 000867.991068.670
CompanyLoyalty987.84 000867.761068.000

Civica company profile

Civica

top

Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.

Spydus

top

This year 45 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and all from outside the United States. Of the 45 libraries responding, only 3 (6.7%)indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Spydus sees its highest ratings among mid-sized public libraries in print functionality (6.92) and lowest in functionality for electronic resources (4.62). Civica receives strong loyalty scores from small (7.29) and mid-sized (6.85) public libraries. Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. This year saw an increasy in company loyalty, but a slight drop in other categories.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

SpydusallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS456.73 400237.26136.46100
ILSFunctionality456.93 400237.30136.92100
PrintFunctionality436.95 400216.95136.92100
ElectronicFunctionality455.18 400235.74134.62100
SatisfactionCustomerSupport446.45 400226.91135.92100
CompanyLoyalty437.12 400217.29136.85100

Koha logo

Koha

top

Support providerResponsesGeneral Satisfaction
All Installations2757.57
ByWater Solutions1247.74
Independent757.88
LibLime306.67
PTFS Europe67.83
BibLibre4--
Catalyst3--
Kobli 3--
Equinox4--
Interleaf Technology3--

Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.

As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 275 libraries using Koha responded to the survey. Libraries of all types use Koha, reflected in this year’s responses:

  • Consortium: 2
  • School: 11
  • Large Academic: 2
  • Medium Academic: 15
  • Small Academic: 65
  • Large Public: 1
  • Medium Public: 8
  • Small Public: 94

When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been slowly rising since 2011. Scores saw a sharp peak in 2010, while 2008 and 2009 were much lower than previous or subsequent years.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2697.57 657.71157.802947.6587.251116.552
ILSFunctionality2697.35 657.37157.472947.4386.251116.822
PrintFunctionality2687.60 658.08157.602947.3087.751117.182
ElectronicFunctionality2606.07 656.12155.602906.1386.381116.092
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2567.36 637.52157.202887.5388.131106.302
CompanyLoyalty2497.07 597.12156.132907.2688.251106.102

ByWater Solutions company profile

ByWater Solutions

top

Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown included 76 public libraries, 28 academics, 1 consortium, and 4 schools.

ByWater Solutions earned highest scores in management of electronic resources for mid-sized public libraries (6.46) and satisfaction with customer support (7.67). Small public libraries gave ByWater Solutions the highest company loyalty ratings (8.20). 96.0 percent of its clients reported that their system was implemented on schedule. When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater has seen diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a significant improvement in 2015 and 2016.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

Koha -- ByWater SolutionsallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1247.74 277.7410667.8887.25041
ILSFunctionality1247.44 277.3710667.6186.25041
PrintFunctionality1247.61 277.9610667.4887.75041
ElectronicFunctionality1206.17 275.8110636.3286.38041
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1217.90 277.8110638.0088.13041
CompanyLoyalty1207.78 268.0410657.6388.25041

Evergreen

top

Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 114 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 70 were from small public libraries, 14 from medium sized public libraries, 11 from small academics, and 2 from mid-sized academics (see charts for library type and library size). Among small public libraries, Evergreen received the higher ratings for its print functionality (7.42) than for functionality for electronic resources (6.50).

Most libraries using Evergreen rely on Equinox Software for hosting and support services, with a minority of implementations operate without commercially-povided support services.

Equinox software received the highest ratings by mid-sized public libraries in the category of company loyalty (7.90).

Evergreen, (informe completo del producto y comentarios) es un ILS de código abierto que ha sido implementado principalmente en consorcios de bibliotecas públicas, del que se han recibido 114 respuestas en la encuesta de este año. Del total, 70 fueron de bibliotecas públicas pequeñas, 14 de bibliotecas públicas medianas, 11 de bibliotecas universitarias pequeñas y 2 de bibliotecas universitarias medianas (ver tablas por tipo de biblioteca y tamaño de biblioteca). Recibió las calificaciones más altas por la gestión de productos impresos (7,42) y las más bajas por la gestión de los recursos electrónicos (6,50).

La mayoría de las bibliotecas que utilizan Evergreen dependen del servicio de alojamiento y atención Equinox Software. Sólo una minoría no depende de servicios comerciales.

Equinox software recibió las puntuaciones más altas por parte de las bibliotecas públicas medianas en la categoría de fidelidad a la compañía (7,90).

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1147.22 117.0920707.31147.000187.38
ILSFunctionality1137.19 106.9020717.41136.540187.75
PrintFunctionality1127.42 107.6020697.42147.070188.38
ElectronicFunctionality1126.29 105.2020706.50136.150186.00
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1117.47 107.8020687.56147.290187.50
CompanyLoyalty1047.03 117.2710627.08137.620186.88

Follett company profile

Follett School Solutions

top

Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with around 70 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a fraction of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.

Destiny

top

Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year 621 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 539 from schools and 61 from small public libraries (full product report and narrative comments). It is not surprising that school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public libraries. The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.71 and 6.93 for publics. Destiny received its highest marks for print functionality (8.02), customer support (7.71), and general satisfaction (7.71). This product was seen as weakest in functionality for electronic resources (6.91). Destiny has seen steadily rising scores in the survey since 2010, with a spike in 2013.

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

DestinyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS6117.54 76.1400616.39005307.711
ILSFunctionality6027.45 87.0000606.20005217.621
PrintFunctionality6097.89 87.5000617.02005278.021
ElectronicFunctionality5746.75 74.4300575.75004986.911
SatisfactionCustomerSupport5947.57 86.6300606.83005137.711
CompanyLoyalty5907.24 85.8800605.62005097.481

Circulation Plus, Athena, Winnebago Spectrum

Follett’s legacy products continue to see use, through the numbers are diminishing. This year 4 libraries using Winnebago Spectrum and one each using Athena and Circulation Plus responded to the survey.


OPALS logo

OPALS

top

The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 220 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 148 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 8 from consortia, and 7 from small academic libraries.

OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.65), ILS functionality (8.65), print functionality (8.70), electronic resource functionality (7.65), and company loyalty (8.58).

The following table presents the 2016 survey results by library type and size

OPALSallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2188.59 78.29104001488.6587.63
ILSFunctionality2188.54 78.00104001488.6587.38
PrintFunctionality2188.67 78.43104001488.7088.00
ElectronicFunctionality1877.67 77.29102001337.6587.25
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2158.63 78.71104001478.6977.71
CompanyLoyalty2158.52 68.33104001478.5887.50

FOLO

FOLIO

top

FOLIO is a new open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data, and with the Open Library Environment providing community engagement and educational activities. See EBSCO Supports New Open Source Project published by American Libraries for further information on FOLIO.

As a new initiative, the software is not yet complete and no libraries have yet implemented it in production. The results of this survey do provide some indicators for the level of interest for FOLIO. Of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new automation system, 41 mentioned FOLIO as a candidate. By comparison, in last year's survey 17 libraries mentioned interest in Kuali OLE, which had been an active project for about 7 years. FOLIO was publicly announced in April of 2016. When specifically asked which open source products may be of interest, regardless of active plans to migrate, 87 mentioned FOLIO, 273 mentioned Koha, 84 mentioned Evergreen, and 12 mentioned Kuali OLE. FOLIO was mentioned 12 times in narrative comments.


Selected Statistical Tables

Emphasis on Peer Groups

top

Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

Public Libraries

top

Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2016)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 1 3 6 6 9 97.768 1.60
Symphony38 1 3 17 13 4 77.397 0.65
Horizon18 1 2 3 9 3 76.617 1.65
Sierra32 1 1 1 4 2 6 6 9 2 75.256 1.41
All Responses152 2 1 2 4 7 14 24 49 32 17 76.657 0.65

Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 1 3 8 11 2 87.408 1.60
Symphony38 1 2 4 17 11 3 77.167 1.14
Horizon18 4 2 10 2 76.567 1.89
Sierra32 1 1 5 6 6 8 5 75.816 1.41
All Responses152 2 1 2 11 15 25 56 35 5 76.557 0.73

Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 1 2 8 7 7 77.688 1.80
Symphony38 2 2 12 16 6 87.328 1.14
Horizon18 3 2 4 8 1 87.118 1.89
Sierra32 1 4 2 5 13 5 2 76.477 1.41
All Responses152 5 2 4 8 17 48 48 20 76.997 0.73

Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 2 4 7 7 4 1 66.086 1.40
Symphony37 1 2 3 3 2 11 7 5 3 65.866 0.00
Sierra31 1 5 6 3 9 6 1 65.166 1.44
Horizon18 1 1 1 3 9 2 1 64.896 1.89
All Responses150 6 3 8 14 12 17 43 30 13 4 65.356 0.73

Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2016)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony38 1 6 9 12 10 87.638 1.14
Polaris25 2 2 2 5 3 11 97.528 1.80
Horizon18 1 3 2 5 4 3 76.947 1.65
Sierra31 3 2 4 4 6 4 6 1 1 43.774 1.44
All Responses150 4 2 5 8 11 14 22 28 26 30 96.377 0.49

Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony38 1 1 3 1 11 15 6 87.348 0.65
Polaris25 2 4 3 2 8 6 87.128 1.60
Horizon18 1 3 4 2 6 2 86.837 1.65
Sierra30 3 2 3 4 6 5 3 2 2 54.805 1.64
All Responses149 5 1 2 5 11 21 18 27 34 25 86.467 0.66

Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Library.Solution24 1 2 5 12 4 87.638 1.43
Spydus23 1 12 7 3 77.527 1.46
Polaris60 1 8 23 19 9 77.457 0.77
Horizon23 1 4 9 6 3 77.267 1.67
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 2 1 5 3 2 77.157 1.39
Symphony83 2 1 3 4 7 15 26 16 9 76.577 0.88
Evergreen -- Equinox Software10 2 2 3 3 76.507 1.90
Sierra71 1 1 1 7 6 14 21 15 5 76.467 0.71
All Responses387 1 5 5 8 20 23 58 125 100 42 76.817 0.30

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Library.Solution24 1 1 1 5 10 6 87.678 1.63
Spydus23 1 10 8 4 77.658 1.46
Polaris60 2 6 24 16 12 77.507 0.65
Horizon23 1 2 3 11 4 2 76.877 1.46
Sierra71 1 1 1 2 6 16 22 15 7 76.687 0.71
Symphony84 1 2 1 4 7 14 32 15 8 76.657 0.87
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 2 3 3 4 86.467 1.39
All Responses387 1 3 3 9 12 31 55 128 98 47 76.907 0.25

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Horizon23 2 6 8 7 87.878 1.67
Polaris59 1 1 3 14 23 17 87.838 0.91
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 5 5 2 77.548 1.39
Spydus22 1 2 2 4 8 5 87.368 1.49
Sierra71 2 4 11 20 21 13 87.287 0.71
Evergreen -- Equinox Software10 1 1 3 4 1 87.108 2.53
Symphony82 1 1 3 3 7 6 17 30 14 87.078 0.88
Library.Solution24 2 1 1 7 7 6 77.048 1.63
All Responses384 3 4 3 10 9 25 32 95 127 76 87.188 0.36

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 1 5 1 5 66.466 0.83
Polaris59 3 4 8 12 17 11 4 76.447 0.52
Library.Solution23 1 1 3 5 7 3 3 76.397 1.67
Symphony80 4 2 5 3 5 9 15 18 11 8 75.786 0.78
Spydus23 1 2 1 3 9 4 2 1 65.616 1.04
Sierra71 3 4 7 3 20 12 13 4 5 55.375 0.71
Horizon23 2 4 1 7 3 3 2 1 55.175 1.88
All Responses381 13 5 18 24 23 61 77 82 53 25 75.766 0.20

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions12 3 1 5 3 87.678 1.73
Horizon23 4 7 6 6 77.618 1.67
Library.Solution23 1 1 2 4 9 6 87.578 1.46
Spydus22 3 1 10 5 3 77.187 1.28
Polaris59 1 1 5 14 13 14 11 67.077 0.65
Symphony79 2 1 2 4 9 8 25 13 15 76.757 1.01
Sierra70 1 4 4 4 7 18 11 12 6 3 55.245 0.60
All Responses377 4 9 8 11 14 45 56 84 78 68 76.637 0.26

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Evergreen -- Equinox Software10 1 3 1 5 97.909 2.85
Spydus22 1 2 3 9 7 87.868 1.49
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 1 1 1 2 7 97.779 1.66
Polaris59 2 4 4 9 13 15 12 87.037 0.65
Horizon23 1 2 2 4 5 2 7 96.877 1.67
Library.Solution24 1 1 3 1 2 2 7 7 86.798 1.84
Symphony82 1 3 2 6 9 12 16 17 16 86.657 0.77
Sierra71 4 2 1 11 13 13 11 8 8 55.696 0.59
All Responses385 13 6 6 5 34 39 54 70 74 84 96.567 0.25

Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo35 1 2 9 23 98.409 1.52
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 2 5 10 13 98.078 1.64
Atriuum35 2 1 1 10 5 16 97.808 1.35
Evergreen -- Independent12 1 1 2 5 3 87.588 2.02
Polaris51 2 1 7 15 14 12 77.338 1.12
Evergreen -- Equinox Software13 1 1 2 4 4 1 76.927 2.22
Library.Solution30 1 1 1 2 5 6 7 7 86.907 1.46
Symphony58 1 1 2 2 2 2 6 15 22 5 86.747 0.92
AGent VERSO29 2 1 1 3 5 6 8 3 86.527 0.74
Destiny24 1 3 5 3 5 5 2 55.967 1.63
Sierra41 1 3 4 2 4 5 12 8 2 75.937 1.25
All Responses436 5 5 14 11 14 26 46 98 116 101 87.007 0.43

Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo34 1 3 12 18 98.249 1.54
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 2 7 15 6 87.708 1.46
Evergreen -- Independent12 1 1 3 2 5 97.678 2.02
Atriuum35 1 1 2 10 10 11 97.668 1.35
Polaris51 2 1 2 7 12 15 12 87.278 1.12
Evergreen -- Equinox Software13 2 2 3 3 3 77.087 1.94
Library.Solution30 1 2 1 6 6 10 4 87.007 1.46
Symphony58 2 4 2 4 6 15 15 10 76.747 1.05
AGent VERSO29 1 1 2 4 5 3 11 2 86.557 0.74
Sierra41 3 5 1 2 3 12 11 4 76.377 1.25
Destiny24 1 3 1 4 4 4 5 2 85.886 1.63
All Responses436 2 6 9 16 20 25 42 99 124 93 87.007 0.43

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo35 1 1 3 7 23 98.269 1.35
Atriuum34 1 1 1 3 1 10 17 97.949 1.37
Polaris49 1 1 1 2 11 13 20 97.868 1.14
Evergreen -- Independent12 2 4 2 4 77.338 2.02
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 2 1 1 3 5 8 10 97.208 1.64
Evergreen -- Equinox Software12 1 2 3 4 2 87.178 2.31
Destiny24 2 2 2 7 6 5 77.177 1.63
Library.Solution30 1 3 5 6 9 6 87.108 1.46
Symphony57 3 3 1 6 12 23 9 87.058 1.06
AGent VERSO29 1 2 5 9 8 4 77.037 0.74
Sierra40 1 1 2 2 5 1 10 15 3 86.607 1.26
All Responses429 12 1 3 8 22 16 37 85 124 121 87.228 0.39

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo35 2 1 4 6 22 98.009 1.35
Atriuum34 1 1 3 1 2 5 4 4 13 96.828 1.20
Evergreen -- Independent12 1 2 1 3 2 3 76.507 2.31
Library.Solution30 1 2 2 4 3 7 7 4 76.477 1.46
Polaris48 4 3 2 2 7 13 7 10 76.387 1.15
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 3 1 1 3 6 7 4 5 76.077 1.46
Evergreen -- Equinox Software13 1 1 2 5 2 2 65.856 1.39
Symphony55 3 2 2 3 4 4 13 11 10 3 65.696 0.81
Destiny22 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 3 1 75.556 1.49
AGent VERSO25 2 2 1 2 3 3 8 2 2 75.526 0.80
Sierra40 5 1 5 3 2 2 6 11 3 2 74.836 1.11
All Responses418 25 13 18 21 23 36 64 86 61 71 75.977 0.39

Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo35 1 1 2 31 98.639 1.52
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 1 3 5 20 98.339 1.64
Atriuum35 1 1 2 1 6 5 19 97.869 1.18
Evergreen -- Independent12 1 1 1 1 1 7 97.679 1.73
AGent VERSO28 1 5 4 10 8 87.618 0.57
Library.Solution29 1 2 1 3 5 4 13 97.418 1.49
Symphony53 2 1 4 3 5 14 14 10 76.877 1.10
Polaris48 1 1 1 3 5 9 9 7 12 96.737 0.72
Evergreen -- Equinox Software12 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 76.507 2.02
Destiny23 1 1 2 6 1 3 4 5 56.177 1.88
Sierra40 2 4 4 4 3 7 8 6 2 75.426 1.26
All Responses420 9 5 8 14 19 28 42 77 76 142 97.048 0.44

Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 1 2 8 18 98.209 1.64
Atriuum35 1 1 2 4 1 5 21 97.919 1.35
Apollo34 2 1 1 1 5 24 97.889 1.54
Polaris50 4 1 3 3 3 9 11 16 96.828 0.57
Symphony57 4 1 1 2 6 5 14 11 13 76.587 1.06
AGent VERSO29 3 1 2 2 8 9 4 86.557 0.00
Library.Solution27 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 5 3 7 96.157 1.35
Evergreen -- Equinox Software11 2 1 1 2 3 2 86.097 2.41
Sierra41 3 2 4 2 5 10 8 4 3 65.466 0.94
Destiny23 4 2 1 3 3 8 2 85.437 1.67
All Responses419 33 5 10 12 17 32 38 57 84 131 96.608 0.44

Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo61 1 1 3 13 43 98.579 1.15
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 5 5 10 10 87.838 1.64
Atriuum49 2 1 1 2 5 19 19 87.828 0.29
Symphony45 1 2 2 3 11 12 14 97.518 1.34
Polaris34 1 2 6 4 16 5 87.388 1.54
AGent VERSO43 1 3 3 17 11 8 77.357 1.07
Evergreen -- Equinox Software22 1 3 3 3 8 4 87.188 1.71
Destiny37 2 1 1 4 6 9 6 8 76.687 1.32
LibraryWorld16 1 2 6 4 2 1 66.316 1.25
Sierra19 4 3 1 5 3 3 76.267 1.61
None11 3 1 1 1 1 4 94.825 2.71
All Responses483 4 3 9 6 18 27 52 91 127 146 97.308 0.41

Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo63 1 1 2 3 17 39 98.409 1.13
Atriuum49 2 1 1 2 8 19 16 87.698 0.29
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 5 7 11 7 87.678 1.46
Polaris35 3 5 4 16 7 87.468 1.52
Symphony44 1 1 5 2 8 14 13 87.438 1.36
AGent VERSO42 1 4 3 11 18 5 87.338 0.93
Evergreen -- Equinox Software22 1 1 4 6 6 4 77.237 1.71
Sierra19 4 1 2 5 5 2 76.637 1.61
Destiny36 1 2 1 2 5 5 5 10 5 86.427 1.33
LibraryWorld16 1 1 2 6 3 3 66.066 1.25
None10 4 1 1 4 04.505 2.85
All Responses481 5 2 13 3 19 31 52 89 140 127 87.218 0.41

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo62 1 1 1 2 15 42 98.509 1.14
Atriuum46 2 1 1 1 3 20 18 87.918 0.44
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 1 7 10 11 97.808 1.46
Symphony45 1 1 1 2 2 9 14 15 97.588 1.34
Polaris34 1 2 3 6 14 8 87.568 0.51
AGent VERSO41 1 1 4 3 11 13 8 87.208 0.78
Evergreen -- Equinox Software21 1 1 2 2 2 8 5 87.108 1.96
Destiny37 1 1 2 4 4 8 10 7 86.927 1.32
LibraryWorld16 1 1 5 4 3 2 66.757 2.00
Sierra18 1 2 1 4 3 4 3 66.507 1.65
None10 4 1 1 1 3 04.405 2.85
All Responses475 12 3 12 14 27 36 81 139 151 97.348 0.41

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo62 1 3 1 4 17 36 98.219 1.14
AGent VERSO34 1 1 4 3 9 8 8 77.097 1.20
Polaris33 1 3 3 3 8 6 9 96.977 1.57
Symphony45 2 1 1 4 1 3 9 15 9 86.808 1.34
Evergreen -- Equinox Software22 2 3 2 5 7 3 86.597 1.92
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 2 3 1 2 7 6 6 76.567 1.54
Atriuum47 4 2 3 7 3 2 15 11 86.388 1.17
Destiny35 1 2 4 2 6 5 2 7 6 85.896 1.01
Sierra19 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 04.846 0.92
LibraryWorld14 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 04.506 0.00
None10 5 1 1 3 03.604 2.85
All Responses456 41 8 5 18 26 44 41 67 101 105 96.287 0.37

Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo61 1 1 1 1 1 11 45 98.419 1.15
Atriuum48 1 1 3 4 16 23 98.138 1.15
AGent VERSO42 2 3 7 16 14 87.888 1.23
Symphony43 2 1 1 1 8 12 18 97.798 1.37
Koha -- ByWater Solutions28 1 5 2 11 9 87.798 1.51
Evergreen -- Equinox Software21 1 3 4 8 5 87.388 1.96
Destiny37 1 1 2 3 3 6 9 12 97.248 1.32
Polaris34 1 1 2 6 6 10 8 87.248 1.54
LibraryWorld16 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 55.506 1.00
Sierra19 1 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 35.475 1.38
All Responses472 7 3 6 16 16 27 35 54 123 185 97.418 0.37

Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo62 2 2 1 2 1 14 40 98.139 1.02
Atriuum47 1 1 1 2 1 7 14 20 97.668 0.29
Evergreen -- Equinox Software19 1 1 2 2 4 9 97.478 2.06
AGent VERSO42 3 3 6 5 16 9 87.318 0.93
Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 1 6 2 5 4 10 97.107 0.93
Symphony44 1 1 1 8 6 4 6 17 97.098 1.36
Polaris34 2 4 6 4 6 6 6 56.297 0.00
Sierra18 2 2 3 2 4 3 2 75.837 0.94
Destiny37 4 3 1 2 6 3 4 7 7 85.736 1.32
LibraryWorld16 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 14.696 1.00
All Responses468 27 7 8 6 28 46 40 57 92 157 96.788 0.37

All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo102 1 1 2 5 23 70 98.509 0.89
Atriuum89 2 3 2 3 15 28 36 97.838 0.85
Koha -- ByWater Solutions75 4 6 15 25 25 87.818 1.04
Evergreen -- Independent27 1 1 3 3 12 7 87.598 1.73
Polaris178 2 2 1 4 26 49 57 37 87.438 0.45
Library.Solution65 1 1 2 3 8 14 23 13 87.268 0.87
V-smart10 1 3 1 3 2 67.208 1.90
Axiell Aurora12 1 8 3 77.177 2.02
Absys.Net11 1 4 1 2 3 67.097 2.71
Evergreen -- Equinox Software52 4 4 9 11 17 7 87.047 1.11
Koha -- Independent11 1 1 1 3 2 3 77.007 2.11
Koha -- LibLime12 1 1 3 6 1 87.008 2.02
Horizon55 1 1 4 10 21 11 7 76.987 0.94
Spydus37 1 2 1 5 13 11 4 76.977 0.00
AGent VERSO76 3 1 2 6 9 23 21 11 76.967 0.46
Symphony232 1 3 4 6 9 12 27 71 64 35 76.947 0.26
LibraryWorld18 1 2 6 4 3 2 66.567 1.18
Destiny61 3 4 1 9 9 14 11 10 76.397 1.02
BOOK-IT12 3 1 2 2 4 86.257 1.73
Sierra168 2 2 6 13 11 19 26 49 29 11 76.087 0.46
Millennium17 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 2 1 64.825 1.46
None11 3 1 1 1 1 4 94.825 2.71
Amlib14 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 34.795 0.53
All Responses1516 13 15 32 31 61 92 189 374 386 323 87.017 0.15

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo103 1 1 1 3 6 31 60 98.339 0.89
Atriuum89 2 1 2 1 4 19 32 28 87.708 0.85
Evergreen -- Independent27 2 3 7 7 8 97.528 1.73
Koha -- ByWater Solutions75 1 2 2 8 18 31 13 87.478 0.92
Polaris179 2 1 4 7 21 49 60 35 87.398 0.37
Absys.Net11 1 3 1 2 4 97.368 2.71
Library.Solution65 1 3 2 8 16 23 12 87.348 0.99
Axiell Aurora12 1 7 4 77.257 2.02
Koha -- Independent11 2 2 2 2 3 97.187 2.11
Spydus37 1 1 2 4 13 11 5 77.167 0.66
Evergreen -- Equinox Software51 1 3 2 8 15 13 9 77.127 1.12
V-smart10 2 1 3 3 1 77.007 1.90
AGent VERSO75 1 2 3 8 8 14 32 7 87.008 0.46
Symphony232 2 1 4 6 8 18 26 74 57 36 76.917 0.46
Koha -- LibLime12 1 2 4 4 1 76.677 2.02
Horizon56 1 1 1 9 7 24 8 5 76.667 0.94
Sierra168 1 2 4 6 13 15 27 49 37 14 76.447 0.46
LibraryWorld18 1 1 2 6 4 3 1 66.286 1.18
BOOK-IT12 1 3 3 2 3 56.256 1.73
Destiny60 2 5 1 3 9 9 9 15 7 86.207 1.03
Millennium17 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 44.825 1.46
Amlib13 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 44.544 0.55
None10 4 1 1 4 04.505 2.85
All Responses1513 8 13 28 32 67 107 179 384 409 286 86.997 0.13

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS Support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS215 2 2 2 3 4 28 174 98.639 0.61
Apollo102 1 1 1 1 2 2 14 80 98.479 0.89
Atriuum99 1 2 4 4 10 26 52 98.089 0.70
Koha -- ByWater Solutions121 1 1 2 4 9 11 41 52 97.908 0.82
Mandarin Oasis10 1 1 2 1 5 97.809 2.85
Evergreen -- Independent33 2 1 1 2 1 6 20 97.739 1.57
ResourceMate11 1 1 1 2 6 97.649 2.71
AGent VERSO87 1 1 6 8 13 32 26 87.628 0.32
Library.Solution92 1 2 3 6 8 14 19 39 97.588 0.73
Destiny594 6 4 6 9 22 28 32 92 164 231 97.578 0.33
Alexandria20 1 2 5 4 8 97.558 1.57
EOS.Web32 1 1 4 2 4 6 14 97.538 1.59
Horizon96 1 1 2 3 8 9 21 27 24 87.218 0.71
Evergreen -- Equinox Software68 1 1 3 7 8 13 19 16 87.138 0.61
Symphony418 4 4 5 10 17 29 44 91 111 103 87.118 0.39
WorldShare Management Services133 1 2 5 2 3 7 17 29 43 24 86.998 0.69
Polaris212 1 1 3 2 14 18 37 41 47 48 96.967 0.55
Libero12 1 4 4 1 2 66.927 1.73
Axiell Aurora12 1 3 6 2 76.757 1.44
Koha -- Independent68 1 2 2 3 3 7 7 12 16 15 86.637 1.09
V-smart12 1 2 4 1 4 66.586 1.73
Koha -- LibLime29 1 3 5 2 8 7 3 76.487 0.93
Spydus44 1 1 3 1 4 4 18 9 3 76.457 0.00
Alma156 2 2 4 10 10 13 26 46 32 11 76.277 0.24
Virtua20 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 6 2 86.257 1.57
BOOK-IT13 1 1 1 2 3 5 86.237 2.22
ALEPH 500127 2 3 4 3 10 16 22 32 23 12 76.207 0.80
Absys.Net16 3 4 2 5 2 76.066 1.75
Voyager112 3 2 5 5 11 13 16 22 26 9 86.037 0.38
Alto17 1 2 1 1 3 4 4 1 75.887 1.46
LibraryWorld26 2 1 2 3 3 3 5 2 5 75.816 0.78
Sierra426 11 18 34 35 43 67 65 90 45 18 75.266 0.19
Amlib14 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 45.216 1.07
None10 4 1 5 95.009 2.85
Millennium143 6 14 13 18 13 24 20 14 17 4 54.595 0.67
All Responses3878 58 67 92 131 192 317 403 673 849 1096 96.918 0.08

Academic Libraries

top

Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2016)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma45 1 1 6 7 17 10 3 76.697 1.04
Symphony22 1 2 3 4 4 7 1 86.457 1.71
ALEPH 50030 2 1 2 12 7 2 4 66.436 1.28
Sierra43 1 8 15 11 8 66.336 0.91
Voyager26 2 2 4 8 4 6 66.086 1.18
Millennium21 4 1 7 4 4 1 44.334 1.31
All Responses215 1 1 5 7 16 31 56 49 41 8 66.196 0.55

Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma45 1 3 4 5 17 13 2 76.737 1.19
Symphony22 2 2 2 3 6 5 2 76.277 1.49
Sierra43 1 3 7 12 13 6 1 76.166 0.91
ALEPH 50030 3 2 4 10 6 2 3 66.076 1.28
Voyager26 1 5 2 4 6 4 4 65.386 1.18
Millennium21 1 5 4 4 4 2 1 23.764 1.31
All Responses215 1 3 8 18 17 29 41 52 36 10 75.936 0.48

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50030 1 2 10 9 8 77.678 1.46
Symphony22 1 2 5 10 4 87.648 1.71
Sierra43 3 2 13 18 7 87.568 1.07
Voyager26 1 1 5 8 7 4 77.197 1.37
Alma45 1 1 5 4 16 15 3 76.937 1.19
Millennium21 1 2 5 5 6 2 86.907 1.96
All Responses215 1 1 4 14 23 66 75 31 87.297 0.55

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma45 1 2 5 10 11 10 6 76.767 0.75
Sierra43 1 1 4 3 10 10 9 4 1 55.606 0.91
Symphony22 1 1 1 4 2 6 2 3 2 65.506 1.28
Voyager26 2 8 5 1 4 2 3 1 23.773 0.39
ALEPH 50030 4 1 6 4 3 5 5 1 1 23.574 1.10
Millennium21 1 6 5 4 3 1 1 12.522 0.65
All Responses215 10 13 22 23 21 27 37 30 23 9 64.855 0.41

Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50030 1 1 8 8 5 7 67.137 1.28
Symphony22 1 2 2 4 3 7 3 86.737 1.71
Voyager26 3 6 2 4 9 2 86.627 1.18
Alma45 1 1 2 1 4 8 13 14 1 86.497 1.04
Sierra43 1 4 3 12 8 11 4 55.636 0.76
Millennium21 1 3 6 2 1 5 2 1 23.383 1.09
All Responses215 2 5 11 8 11 33 37 47 46 15 76.117 0.55

Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma45 3 7 1 9 15 10 87.248 0.60
Voyager26 1 1 3 4 8 2 7 76.927 1.37
ALEPH 50030 2 1 1 5 2 4 4 11 96.778 1.28
Symphony21 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 6 3 86.247 1.75
Sierra43 2 2 2 3 6 5 7 7 8 1 85.306 0.30
Millennium21 1 3 4 5 3 2 2 1 44.194 1.53
All Responses214 7 6 6 11 18 32 19 37 38 40 96.177 0.55

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services42 1 2 1 3 5 14 10 6 76.867 1.23
Alma58 1 2 8 12 20 12 3 76.667 1.05
Symphony40 1 2 1 2 6 5 10 10 3 76.337 1.42
Sierra77 5 4 8 8 9 26 16 1 76.067 0.46
ALEPH 50036 1 2 4 5 9 10 3 2 75.976 1.00
Millennium42 2 2 5 2 5 8 5 6 5 2 54.955 1.08
Voyager31 1 4 1 3 3 6 5 6 1 1 54.715 0.18
All Responses389 3 8 16 16 27 54 55 110 73 27 76.157 0.41

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma58 1 1 1 3 11 23 13 5 76.907 0.92
WorldShare Management Services43 1 2 2 4 7 18 6 3 76.477 1.37
Symphony40 1 1 1 6 1 5 10 13 2 86.427 1.26
Sierra76 3 5 4 14 10 18 15 7 76.267 0.57
ALEPH 50036 3 1 7 3 8 7 2 5 65.836 1.00
Millennium42 2 2 2 6 4 7 3 7 4 5 55.215 1.08
Voyager30 1 2 3 4 2 4 7 5 2 64.775 0.18
All Responses388 3 7 14 25 30 42 58 107 69 33 76.157 0.46

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50035 2 2 6 6 11 8 87.318 1.01
Sierra77 2 3 5 10 16 25 16 87.268 0.80
WorldShare Management Services43 1 1 2 7 9 17 6 87.238 0.76
Symphony39 1 1 1 4 13 14 5 87.187 1.44
Alma58 2 2 2 14 19 13 6 76.887 1.18
Millennium42 2 4 2 5 13 10 6 76.837 1.08
Voyager31 2 2 2 2 4 9 7 3 76.397 0.72
All Responses388 1 3 9 15 19 54 104 121 62 87.137 0.25

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma57 1 1 3 11 17 19 5 87.047 1.19
WorldShare Management Services43 1 1 1 4 4 5 11 10 6 76.587 1.07
Sierra77 1 6 5 8 7 10 12 16 11 1 75.186 0.34
Symphony40 2 2 6 3 3 6 8 2 6 2 64.835 1.26
Millennium42 3 4 8 2 7 3 6 3 5 1 24.174 0.00
ALEPH 50036 2 6 6 3 5 5 5 1 2 1 13.724 1.00
Voyager31 6 3 6 3 3 3 6 1 03.103 0.00
All Responses388 20 25 38 25 37 40 62 60 60 21 65.126 0.36

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony40 1 3 2 3 3 4 14 10 87.058 1.42
WorldShare Management Services43 1 1 1 3 9 9 12 7 86.957 1.22
Alma57 4 5 5 12 17 10 4 76.397 0.93
ALEPH 50036 1 1 3 9 4 11 6 1 76.117 1.00
Voyager30 2 1 2 2 4 2 6 4 5 2 65.306 0.18
Sierra77 3 6 6 6 7 10 11 20 5 3 75.036 0.68
Millennium41 3 4 5 5 5 6 4 3 6 54.204 0.78
All Responses386 9 13 15 25 30 42 58 81 75 38 75.977 0.41

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma58 1 3 6 9 14 8 17 97.107 1.18
WorldShare Management Services43 1 1 1 1 5 4 5 11 14 97.098 1.22
ALEPH 50035 2 4 3 9 3 6 8 66.636 1.01
Voyager30 1 2 7 4 2 6 2 6 46.006 0.73
Symphony39 2 4 2 1 2 3 4 7 5 9 95.857 1.44
Sierra75 5 6 3 5 9 8 11 16 8 4 75.086 0.58
Millennium41 3 3 7 4 2 5 3 3 7 4 24.715 0.16
All Responses383 18 18 18 15 31 39 45 66 60 73 95.977 0.41

Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent26 1 3 4 8 10 97.888 1.77
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 1 1 4 12 8 87.748 1.73
Polaris14 1 1 4 6 2 87.218 2.14
WorldShare Management Services51 1 1 1 5 11 12 16 4 86.787 0.84
Horizon13 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 76.777 1.94
Sierra72 1 2 5 3 13 30 14 4 76.637 0.59
Alma30 1 2 1 1 1 5 8 8 3 76.377 0.73
Symphony68 2 3 5 3 6 9 20 13 7 76.247 0.73
AGent VERSO11 1 1 2 1 3 3 76.187 1.21
Voyager33 1 2 3 4 3 9 5 4 2 65.556 1.04
ALEPH 50028 1 1 1 4 2 3 7 5 2 2 65.326 1.70
Millennium40 2 1 2 7 9 8 7 3 1 55.285 0.79
All Responses523 11 6 11 28 32 47 84 128 110 66 76.407 0.22

Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent26 1 2 1 6 9 7 87.508 1.77
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 1 1 8 11 5 87.378 1.73
Horizon13 1 2 4 5 1 87.087 1.94
Polaris15 1 1 2 7 2 2 76.807 1.55
WorldShare Management Services50 1 2 2 4 6 15 16 4 86.787 0.99
Sierra71 1 2 5 8 10 16 23 6 86.737 0.95
Symphony68 2 3 7 5 6 21 16 8 76.607 1.09
Alma30 1 3 1 3 2 7 11 2 86.537 0.55
AGent VERSO11 1 1 2 3 1 3 66.006 1.21
Millennium40 3 2 5 7 5 12 4 2 75.786 0.79
Voyager33 1 2 4 3 4 6 4 7 2 85.646 1.39
ALEPH 50028 1 2 5 3 2 5 7 2 1 75.216 1.32
All Responses522 2 4 18 29 35 55 63 133 127 56 76.467 0.31

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent26 1 2 2 8 13 98.159 1.77
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 6 10 10 87.968 1.73
Polaris14 1 3 8 2 87.798 2.14
Horizon13 1 4 6 2 87.628 1.94
Sierra71 1 1 1 2 6 11 35 14 87.558 0.00
WorldShare Management Services51 5 6 13 20 7 87.358 1.12
Symphony67 1 3 3 4 4 18 19 15 87.168 1.10
Millennium40 4 2 6 12 11 5 76.977 0.95
Alma30 1 2 3 5 4 11 4 86.908 0.91
AGent VERSO11 1 1 2 5 2 76.457 1.81
Voyager33 1 1 1 3 3 6 7 6 5 76.367 1.39
ALEPH 50028 3 2 2 6 5 6 4 66.327 1.70
All Responses520 3 2 7 10 19 34 56 108 169 112 87.208 0.00

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services50 1 1 2 1 6 7 12 18 2 86.587 0.99
Alma29 1 1 1 1 2 6 5 9 3 86.487 0.74
Koha -- Independent26 2 1 6 1 7 6 3 76.467 1.77
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 2 1 2 4 2 1 4 10 1 85.817 1.73
Horizon12 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 75.507 0.87
Sierra69 3 1 5 3 6 16 6 17 10 2 75.466 0.48
Symphony67 3 3 6 4 10 10 12 5 10 4 65.075 0.98
Polaris15 2 3 1 1 7 1 74.937 0.52
Millennium39 3 3 6 5 7 5 5 4 1 54.675 0.80
AGent VERSO10 2 1 3 1 2 1 44.204 1.90
Voyager32 2 3 8 5 3 6 2 1 2 23.473 1.06
ALEPH 50027 2 4 5 5 2 5 1 1 2 23.373 1.35
All Responses512 27 24 44 37 45 80 55 87 88 25 85.225 0.18

Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Horizon13 1 1 1 4 6 97.858 2.22
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 1 1 2 11 11 87.818 1.73
Koha -- Independent25 1 1 1 1 5 9 7 87.408 1.80
WorldShare Management Services51 3 1 3 5 8 21 10 87.248 0.98
AGent VERSO11 1 2 2 4 2 86.828 1.51
Symphony67 2 1 2 4 7 7 12 19 13 86.787 0.86
Polaris15 3 3 3 4 2 86.737 1.55
Alma30 1 2 1 2 4 4 6 5 5 76.037 0.55
Sierra71 2 1 3 5 5 8 8 19 15 5 76.037 0.47
Voyager30 1 1 1 2 1 4 6 7 6 1 75.836 0.73
ALEPH 50026 2 3 1 4 2 4 6 3 1 75.006 1.77
Millennium40 1 4 1 5 6 9 6 2 5 1 54.725 0.79
All Responses513 12 15 13 26 34 56 50 90 120 97 86.437 0.18

Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions26 1 2 4 6 13 98.049 1.77
Horizon13 2 1 3 3 4 97.318 1.94
Polaris13 1 1 1 2 5 3 87.318 1.94
WorldShare Management Services51 3 1 2 4 1 8 17 15 87.128 1.12
ALEPH 50027 2 2 2 1 1 5 7 7 86.708 1.73
Koha -- Independent21 2 2 2 4 4 7 96.628 1.96
Alma28 3 1 1 3 4 6 2 8 96.297 0.57
Voyager33 2 1 3 4 4 10 5 4 76.277 0.70
Symphony67 6 4 1 2 2 8 4 17 10 13 75.977 1.10
Sierra71 2 3 2 5 5 11 7 16 9 11 75.947 0.59
AGent VERSO11 1 1 3 4 2 75.647 1.51
Millennium40 4 4 1 5 7 9 2 4 4 54.154 0.79
All Responses510 30 23 13 21 35 49 37 98 89 115 96.187 0.22

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 2 9 98.509 2.60
Koha -- Independent38 2 5 5 12 14 97.828 1.46
Koha -- ByWater Solutions28 1 1 1 4 13 8 87.758 1.70
Polaris16 1 1 1 5 6 2 87.138 2.00
Evergreen -- Equinox Software10 1 3 4 1 1 76.807 1.90
WorldShare Management Services101 1 1 1 3 3 9 18 27 28 10 86.737 0.80
Virtua13 1 1 1 4 5 1 86.697 2.22
Alma134 2 2 3 3 15 24 45 31 9 76.617 0.35
Sierra192 1 1 5 6 13 19 37 67 38 5 76.337 0.36
Horizon23 1 4 5 1 4 5 3 56.307 1.46
Symphony131 2 1 6 6 7 16 18 34 30 11 76.297 0.52
Library.Solution12 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 86.258 2.60
AGent VERSO11 1 1 2 1 3 3 76.187 1.21
Alto10 1 2 3 3 1 66.006 1.90
ALEPH 50095 1 1 2 8 7 11 28 22 7 8 65.926 0.92
Voyager90 2 4 3 8 9 13 22 15 11 3 65.416 0.11
Millennium103 4 2 10 5 19 21 17 13 9 3 54.955 0.59
All Responses1139 15 15 33 51 76 134 195 288 227 105 76.287 0.24

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 2 1 8 98.259 2.60
Koha -- Independent38 1 2 3 10 14 8 87.478 1.46
Koha -- ByWater Solutions28 1 1 1 9 11 5 87.368 1.70
Virtua13 1 2 1 4 2 3 76.777 2.50
Alma134 1 1 1 4 5 10 18 47 38 9 76.777 0.26
Polaris17 1 1 4 7 2 2 76.717 1.46
Library.Solution12 1 3 1 5 2 86.678 2.31
WorldShare Management Services101 1 1 1 4 5 10 14 34 24 7 76.557 0.90
Symphony131 1 5 6 13 9 14 37 34 12 76.487 0.79
Sierra190 1 4 10 9 29 32 47 44 14 76.427 0.44
Horizon23 1 4 3 2 6 6 1 76.097 1.46
AGent VERSO11 1 1 2 3 1 3 66.006 1.21
ALEPH 50095 1 6 9 12 9 23 20 6 9 65.686 0.72
Voyager89 2 3 5 13 7 12 19 13 11 4 65.276 0.11
Millennium103 2 3 10 12 13 18 10 19 9 7 75.145 0.59
Alto10 1 2 1 3 2 1 65.106 0.95
All Responses1137 6 14 42 72 83 127 163 292 235 103 76.257 0.27

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 1 1 9 98.509 2.60
Koha -- Independent38 1 3 6 13 15 98.008 1.46
Koha -- ByWater Solutions28 1 6 11 10 87.968 1.70
Virtua13 1 3 6 3 87.858 2.50
Polaris16 1 5 8 2 87.698 2.00
Horizon23 1 1 7 10 4 87.658 1.46
Sierra191 1 3 4 10 18 40 78 37 87.438 0.00
Alto10 1 4 4 1 77.308 2.21
WorldShare Management Services102 1 1 8 15 26 37 14 87.258 0.50
Symphony129 1 1 4 3 6 11 36 43 24 87.248 0.79
Library.Solution12 1 2 1 4 4 87.088 2.31
ALEPH 50094 1 3 2 3 4 14 21 26 20 87.067 0.93
Alma134 1 1 2 5 10 23 39 39 14 76.927 0.43
Millennium103 2 9 6 16 30 27 13 76.907 0.89
Voyager90 1 3 3 6 6 15 24 20 12 76.617 0.42
AGent VERSO11 1 1 2 5 2 76.457 1.81
All Responses1135 5 3 11 19 38 67 135 279 368 210 87.198 0.15

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS11 1 3 6 1 87.368 2.11
Alma132 3 1 1 4 10 27 33 39 14 86.837 0.35
WorldShare Management Services101 1 2 1 5 6 10 14 24 30 8 86.507 0.70
Koha -- Independent38 1 3 2 8 3 10 8 3 76.137 1.46
Koha -- ByWater Solutions28 3 1 2 4 2 1 4 10 1 85.617 1.70
Sierra189 4 8 11 15 16 36 28 42 25 4 75.386 0.29
Library.Solution12 2 1 3 1 4 1 75.336 2.02
Symphony130 6 6 13 7 18 18 26 9 19 8 65.065 0.70
Polaris17 2 3 1 1 1 8 1 75.007 0.49
Horizon22 1 3 2 5 1 1 1 4 3 1 34.454 0.64
Alto10 1 2 1 2 3 1 64.405 0.95
Virtua13 1 1 4 2 1 2 2 34.234 0.83
AGent VERSO10 2 1 3 1 2 1 44.204 1.90
Millennium102 7 13 13 12 15 11 11 8 10 2 44.024 0.30
ALEPH 50094 8 12 17 12 10 15 11 3 5 1 23.543 0.72
Voyager89 8 8 22 13 7 13 10 4 3 1 23.433 0.00
All Responses1126 57 63 106 86 104 149 154 178 174 55 75.115 0.21

All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 11 98.839 2.60
Koha -- ByWater Solutions28 1 1 1 2 11 12 97.868 1.70
WorldShare Management Services102 1 3 1 2 7 15 20 36 17 87.108 0.79
Library.Solution11 1 1 2 2 1 4 97.007 2.41
Koha -- Independent36 1 1 1 1 2 4 6 12 8 86.978 1.50
Horizon22 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 7 86.918 1.71
Symphony130 2 3 5 8 12 15 19 40 26 86.858 0.61
AGent VERSO11 1 2 2 4 2 86.828 1.51
Polaris17 3 2 3 3 4 2 86.537 1.46
Alto10 1 1 2 2 3 1 86.507 1.90
Alma133 2 2 2 8 6 13 24 37 29 10 76.357 0.26
Virtua13 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 86.157 1.94
ALEPH 50093 2 3 3 1 8 12 16 25 14 9 76.117 0.93
Voyager86 3 2 3 4 8 12 14 15 20 5 85.886 0.11
Sierra191 5 8 9 15 15 30 27 50 24 8 75.536 0.29
Millennium102 5 11 12 12 12 20 12 5 11 2 54.244 0.50
All Responses1125 23 33 40 59 76 132 147 220 241 154 86.217 0.24

All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS11 1 2 8 98.649 2.71
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 2 4 7 13 98.048 1.73
WorldShare Management Services102 4 1 3 1 3 11 5 14 28 32 97.038 0.79
Alma132 3 1 1 7 16 14 29 25 36 96.997 0.26
Polaris15 2 1 1 1 2 5 3 86.808 1.81
ALEPH 50093 2 2 5 7 9 13 12 17 26 96.697 0.93
Koha -- Independent32 3 1 3 3 6 6 10 96.418 1.59
Voyager89 2 2 3 11 11 10 24 9 17 76.377 0.42
Library.Solution12 1 1 3 1 2 4 96.178 2.60
Virtua13 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 76.007 2.50
Symphony128 9 9 3 4 6 14 10 27 21 25 75.967 0.80
Horizon23 3 2 2 1 4 6 5 85.967 1.46
Alto10 2 2 1 3 1 1 75.807 2.21
AGent VERSO11 1 1 3 4 2 75.647 1.51
Sierra189 9 11 7 13 20 24 25 39 25 16 75.466 0.36
Millennium102 8 7 11 13 14 17 7 9 11 5 54.384 0.69
All Responses1118 55 47 39 47 85 120 102 203 187 233 96.117 0.24

School Libraries

top

School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction (2016)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2016)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS148 1 1 2 2 4 16 122 98.659 0.74
Destiny530 2 3 1 11 16 34 118 183 162 87.718 0.26
Symphony15 9 3 3 77.607 2.07
Library.Solution12 2 1 1 4 4 87.588 2.31
All Responses770 4 4 7 11 22 50 140 226 306 97.838 0.04

School Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: School) (2016)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS148 2 2 2 3 20 119 98.659 0.66
Destiny521 1 5 3 10 18 47 102 192 143 87.628 0.26
Symphony15 3 6 4 2 77.337 1.81
Library.Solution12 1 1 2 2 3 3 87.178 2.31
All Responses761 4 7 6 12 25 63 125 237 282 97.758 0.11

School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS148 1 1 4 6 11 125 98.709 0.74
Symphony15 5 4 6 98.078 2.07
Destiny527 1 4 10 11 19 72 192 218 98.028 0.35
Library.Solution12 1 1 3 3 4 97.678 2.31
All Responses766 3 4 12 16 30 98 229 374 98.118 0.18

School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2016)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS133 1 3 1 2 3 34 57 32 87.658 0.69
Destiny498 5 4 7 12 25 57 64 93 111 120 96.917 0.27
Symphony15 1 1 5 4 3 1 66.607 1.81
Library.Solution12 1 3 2 3 3 56.337 2.02
All Responses722 7 7 10 15 30 75 80 144 188 166 87.007 0.04

School Libraries: Company Loyalty (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2016)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS147 2 1 1 5 26 112 98.589 0.74
Unknown17 1 4 7 5 87.888 1.70
Library.Solution10 1 1 1 7 97.609 2.53
Destiny509 9 6 1 2 27 32 34 65 129 204 97.488 0.27
Symphony13 1 1 3 4 4 87.388 2.50
All Responses742 12 9 5 2 34 36 41 84 174 345 97.648 0.26


An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


ILS Turnover Reports

Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2016 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2016 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2016 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


Details about The Survey

top

The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

  • How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
  • How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
  • How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
  • Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
  • How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
  • How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

view automation survey

Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from libraries.org.

A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB and PUBLIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in libraries.org, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

Statistics

top

To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

  • Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
  • A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
  • The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
  • The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
  • The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
  • The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

  • Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
  • Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.

[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


Caveat

As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.