Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2016: An International Survey of Library Automation

Narrative Comments

This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2016 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.

There were 1062 narrative comments given regarding 83 different products:

ABCD

top

El soporte de nuestro SIGB lo brindamos en forma interna en nuestra biblioteca. Soporte mayor como algunos "bugs" en la aplicación, son rápidamente atendidos por la Empresa de SIGB. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

El SIGB que está en producción es de código abierto. En consecuencia no aplican las preguntas sobre si la biblioteca considera migrar a uno de ellos (Library type: Other; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I already use an open source Software; with great help from Egbert de Smet (Antwerpen) and others from the ISIS List (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The amount of items (115.000) refers to the records in the onlime catalogue. The total of documents in the colection (automated processed and manually processed) of the University Library is app. 130.000 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Abilita Kirjasto

top

Gemeni (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Absys.Net

top

Implementing improvements take long to be effective for the library, since it is necessary to wait for a new version. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

La implementación de mejoras tarda mucho en ser efectiva para la biblioteca, puesto que es necesario esperar a una nueva versión. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The library is satisfied with its ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Most of the questions are left blank because we are dependent of a regional library consortium (Comunitat Valenciana region) and those questions doesn't apply to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

La encuesta la respondo desde el [...] . El SIGB lo tenemos contratado para todas las bibliotecas municipales, incluyendo la Hemeroteca: 31 bibliotecas públicas, la Biblioteca Histórica, la Biblioteca Musical, la Hemeroteca y las bibliotecas de museos. No se plantea la adquisición de otro SIGB, de momento, porque en España todas las bibliotecas públicas tienen el mismo sistema para permitir la integración de catálogos. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)


AGent VERSO

top

Autographics provides users with a website that allows for widgets to keep the public informed of events etc. at the library. The cataloging software is very poor and as most of the software doesn't allow for much flexibility. There is no capability of editing label size and display within the software. All updates are done at once by all libraries using their software no option to select when to update. Search function is poor with limited options for finding materials in the collection short of searching shelves. Floating collections is a work in progress that has been difficult to work correctly. The financial portion of the software presents many challenges when handling lost items recovered, waiving fines, partial paying of fines. The software is definitely designed for small libraries with limited resources and knowledge of the scope of options larger libraries with more sophisticated software can do. The support staff do try to help as much as they can, but the software is lacking in the options our staff was used to being able to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

I do not believe that this ILS is very user friendly. It has improved over the past year, but it still needs improvement. The reports are still very clunky, and although navigation on the staff side has improved, there are still too many clicks to get to where I want to go. However, at this time I don't believe the college will approve the cost of a new system. Also, I am retiring and want to leave that decision up to whomever replaces me. Our library consortium has indicated that their ILS, AspenCat, might have an ILS for academic libraries soon, which will be definitely worth considering. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Over the past few years the company has done a great deal of work to improve it's communications, customer support and interfaces. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The customer support that we receive from Auto-Graphics is more friendly and they honestly try to be as helpful as possible. But the actual functionality of the system continues to be a major source of frustration for me and other area libraries. An integrated ILL system that was supposed to be put in place in 2010 has finally been launched and it is very glitchy and not at all consistent across multiple libraries. Statistics show undefined patron groups and in the 3 years I've been pursuing it, they've been unable to track down the source of these undefined statistics and seem generally (at an organizational level) unconcerned about the consequences of these issues. Reports that we've not run appear out of nowhere, and scheduled reports frequently fail because they have "other processes running." Although I truly believe they're trying to fix what's broken, it seems that every time there's an update there is some sort of unwanted side effect. They could really use a few full time librarians on staff, telling them how their product is being used. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

The customer service from this company has always been excellent! They are very responsive to suggestions from their libraries and take those into consideration (and implementation) when there is an update to the program. When a Microsoft update caused a problem, they fixed the issue on my computer remotely. They are excellent to work with! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Agent-Verso Autographics product we use has updates every few months, which can be quite annoying. However, all of the updates have had good reasons and overall improvement of functionality. They have a board of librarians whom they consult for possible consequences of the changes they make, and I don't think that group is doing a very good job of considering the ramifications. Many of the changes result in a non-intuitive change in procedures. The AG customer service, though, is excellent. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

AG has come a long way with the introduction of features and functions that make the ILS attractive and easier to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

They have provided excellent customer service and are constantly working to improve the functionality the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Went through a major weeding project by getting rid of a collection that was have in outdated information. In addtion, the library opened up it spaces to a open floor plan and expanding its electronic holdings. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

sometimes very slow, seems to "hang" in limbo at times. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am uncertain where the approximate number of items from last year came from. It is not what I have found so far. If I find that my calculation is off I will let you know. Thank you. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I would like to see better integration for inter-library loan as well as our electronic resources. The spelling suggestion could also be better. All in all, it does what it's suppose to do. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

VERY rocky start. Once it was determined the software does not work with Internet Explorer, out library migrated to Firefox and 99.9999% of the problems experienced disappeared immediately. We are now starting to allow ourselves to become more dependent on the software and begin using the software more to it's full potential. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Auto Graphics has good people and conveys a desire to be helpful. Our issue is with the numerous upgrades made so frequently and the potential for service interruption each time this happens. There system is very "clunky" and difficult to work with internally when making changes to the landing page, etc. I item collection count includes our branch campus as well as equipment such as laptops, calculators, eReaders, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Staff has not been happy with implementation of Verso Agent since the state encouraged adoption of this system a few years ago. Staff used Apollo previously and have a desire to return to it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


ALEPH 500

top

None of the current products seem to be prepared for innovative changes, such as shared collections, including shared archival collections, or collaborative service approaches (e.g., collaborative cataloging). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our most recent ILS was implemented in 2002 or thereabouts, and I don't know if it went into production according to the terms of the contract. And we can't name the products under consideration yet because we've reached the contract negotiation stage with one company and everything's confidential right now. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Despite years of development, our current and future ILS systems have yet to provide the full functionality and usability libraries need. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently implementing Koha to handle our printed materials. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Aleph does a fine job of managing print resources, but is not adequate for the many e-resources we have to manage. We have little contact with ExLibris, since the product is managed centrally for the consortium. We are on the verge of transitioning from WCL to WC Discovery. We have many problems with the discovery layer, and find OCLC very trying to deal with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We're part of the [...] and the system decides which ILS is purchased. I am not impressed with ExLibris, they do not offer any training for Aleph and are pushing us to upgrade to Alma. I'm concerned that there will only be limited training available for Alma based on how they have not supported Aleph. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

We have several discovery layers currently in place, including Summon. We are considering migrating away from the Endeca layer to either a BlackLight or VuFind. Investigation and testing is currently underway for the [...] consortia. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

It is wonderful that Ex Libris has now made its documentation accessible on the web without a sign-on. Makes it much easier to locate needed information. Overall, the Aleph product has been stable and dependable. Given the size and complexity of our system environment, it has proven to be a solid product. We are working on a RFP now with the goal of having it released by end of 2016, selecting a new system the first half of 2017, and have the contract and approvals completed by the end of 2017. We have started initial planning for the migration by determining the governance structure and types of task forces needed to address various activities. Hopefully we will be ready to start a migration by early 2018. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

No change from previous comments (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

No vendor has a good digital asset management system. We are also looking to uncouple ourselves from MARC has we are primarily an archive and MARC does not lend itself to describing collections. (Library type: Church; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We will be migrating to Sierra in summer 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are in the early stages of thinking about migrating to a new system, but are not actively searching. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra ILS/Encore Duet w/ Ebsco EDS index is projected Summer 2017 go live, for all Florida public universities and colleges. Migration is being coordinated by Florida Academic Library Services Cooperative (FALSC) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are part of the [...] consortium. We have little direct contact with Exlibris. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

The customer support from our consortium office is good. The consortium had an RFP, and selected Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

With OCLC, we see more reliable data and stability in product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Desde el año 2013 hemos contratado el software PRIMO como interfaz de descubrimiento. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

El software aleph esta adquirido para 450 bibliotecas a nivel pais, siendo gestionado siempre desde el nivel central. Cada biblioteca NO tiene control del sistema y cualquier tipo de reportes debe ser canalizado a traves de una mesa de ayuda. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Contract to migrate to ALMA/PRIMO is signed. Migration scheduled for first semester of 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[..] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

At the end of the year, we migrated to the ExLibris cloud and to the last version of Aleph500 (ver.23). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

extended resource services like erm services, integration with vendor e-inovoicing, integration with lesolver, institutional repository, archival and museum systems, and other sources of digital item content, batch record management, are of more concern to us the basic MARC functions of the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have had to migrate to an open source ILS due to legal requirements by the Venezuelan government and the lack of access to foreign currency with which to pay for ILS licenses for the past 3 years. Last year we activated the lifetime (perennial) license clause in order to buy time in which to migrate. All support by the vendor stopped effectively Jabuary 2016 -thus the question about customer support should not be taken into account (I listed a 5- which is probably unfair to the company). The migration effort coupled with lack of funds and IT personnel precludes considering a discovery interface until basic migration to KOHA has been completed. We had Aleph for over 10 years and an excellent relatuonship with the vendor during all this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are currently in a procurement process for a new library system. We expect to implement the new system in autumn 2017 or spring 2018. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

In [...] all libraries are in one concortium and all decisions on systems and discovery tools are taken in library committees and by the steering committee of [...] . The answers provided therefore give a perspective of the current situation in Iceland regarding products under consideration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We use a combination of Aleph, Summon, SFX and VuFind. This year we would like to use a linker and a discovery with the same knowledgebase. It means SFX + Primo CI or 360link + Summon CI. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)


aleph 500

top

about 200,000 total e-books and paper books, (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


ALEPH 500

top

Alma in not yet in production but will be in next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a young university, founded in 1999/2000. The collection is by majority electronic so the print collection is not as extensive as it is in older universities with more accumulation under them in print collection development. We strive to provide a good electronic collection in that respect and the print collection is very much tied in with fluctuations in the academic departments (textbooks and further readings). (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

No longer relevant in the modern HE library and development of the product is all but none existant (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

El número de ejemplares colocado en la pregunta anterior corresponde a un estimado del total de la colección. El número de ejemplares en el SIGB es aproximadamente 1.500.000. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are a part of a large consortium (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Respecto a la pregunta ¿Resulta efectivo este programa para la gestión de los recursos electrónicos? se ha indicado un puntaje bajo pues se está utilizando el descubridor para la recuperación de los recursos electrónicos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Alephino

top

Unsure if Summon will work in an Alma consortium besides Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Alexandria

top

Overall Alexandria is a pretty good ILS system for our needs. It would be nice if we could check-out the ebooks directly from the ILS, but that is something the company has stated will be available in the near future. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We currently use Alexandria version 6.22 while the current version , 7, is completely online. We haven't upgraded because the interface is not as streamlined as the current version we use. It is not a partner with our e-book and database provider (EBSCO) although it is customizable enough to allow a link to EBSCO through its interface. Would like to be able to do hourly check-outs but unable to, haven't checked if version 7 can do that yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Incredibly great tech support with a real person that answers and gives their name! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Being a small school, our needs are small and this product manages them nearly completely. Just wish it was integrated with my Dymo LabelWriter. Very cost-effective service for our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Alma

top

Course reserves are still problematic. Not using ISO ILL features. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma is not ideal for law libraries because it does not fully support serials. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Moving our discovery product into the cloud from a locally-hosted solution has been very problematic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Since our library is small, we don't use a lot of the applications and programs this system is designed to do. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are currently changing from Voyager to Alma with the go-live scheduled in Mid-December so answers to these questions will be easier next year. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are newly contracted with Alma/Primo, and have not yet started the migration to the new product. Obviously we feel that this product will meet our needs, but it's really impossible to answer questions about our satisfaction with it prior to implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)

Working in the Alma and Primo environments is a painful experience each and every work day. The worst part of working in Alma "metadata editor" is the extremely large number of mouse clicks that it takes to complete even the most basic of functions (i.e., attach a barcode). Ex-Libris has attempted to "remedy" the problem by adding a few shortcuts, but there's nothing that can be done with the current awful, time-wasting interface. Our acquisitions, cataloging, and electronic resources management have been extremely negatively affected by Alma adoption, both in the amount of time it takes to complete basic functions and the lack of accuracy that results from using the system, and the situation has not improved after two years. Ex-Libris, as in previous years, continues to not understand their own product, offer up basic functionality for community voting rather than just add these features to the product, and throw away bug fixes that cannot be resolved. It's hopeless to submit problems with CJK/non-romans script records as Ex-Libris cannot understand functionality outside the basic small ASCII character set. Note that Ex-Libris lied to our institution about the functionality provided by Alma Analytics; what they promise customers in terms of search functionality does not exist. The folks at Ex-Libris also have a very poor understanding of all the MARC fields--their knowledge is limited to the basic bib 100/245/264/300/6XX/700 fields, and absolutely nothing of the MARC holdings record fields. We continue to write our own Alma documentation because we understand how the system works and Ex-Libris does not. I have no idea why we adopted this system and I encourage all libraries still in the Voyager environment to remain there or move to another system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)

ExLibris product ALMA/PRIMO was a step backwards from Voyager in terms of ease of use. ALMA has been satisfactory, even good, but PRIMO is a real challenge and not what we had anticipated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Collection number is physical collection. There are still some snags in Alma for us, but they are improving. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma and Primo are excellent products - truly designed for libraries in th 21st century. The only ILS/Discovery Service out there that's designed from scratch for the 21st century. The company is very responsive - excellent user community and vendor representatives. Honest, visionary, collaborative. We are extremely satisfied. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Implementation of Alma was not handled well. Almost full year of confusing information and configuration decisions, then dropped by the implementation team after only one month live. Several months in we are still working to understand and properly configure basic functionalities. The system is designed to work with multi-library systems, but does not scale down well to single library institutions. The User Interface is unnecessarily opaque and extremely non-intuitive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

As members of the [...], we're stuck with Alma/Primo until the consortium decides to move. Ex Libris has stopped responding usefully to most issues reported now that we are out of implementation. Some members of the [...]are not finding Primo as problematic as we are. We are experiencing a severe degradation of service for our patrons and the ongoing disruptive and buggy releases are a challenge for staff. There is functionality that anyone would expect an ILS to provide (and our former, "legacy" ILS did provide) that Alma is incapable of. It is disturbing to watch Ex Libris achieve market dominance with a sub-par product and unresponsive development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Alma is still evolving as a resource management system but it has revolutionised the old print based ILS. It handles eResources quite well particularly when integrated with PCI. Alma D (Digital) has only recently started to be rolled out and looks promising. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Three comments from users: 1) We migrated from Voyager to Alma in January. We are still learning the system and rebuilding from the migration. 2) If we were to migrate again, I can see that Ex Libris would be a strong/the only company to consider. However, I think Alma is still very young as a product, and while I appreciate agile development as a concept, I’m struggling with the constantly changing software as a user. 3) Considering what other options are out there, this was the best decision we could make. The company is really trying to improve on all fronts: support, development and communication. I am happy to continue to work with the company and the user base—many of which migrated from Voyager. We have listservs to share information and help each other to add to the ExLibris Knowledge Center resources. ExLibris has documentation online; video and written training; regular webinars on new features and Q&A on specific topics of interest; API help in the Developer’s Network; and the Idea Exchange for suggesting tweaks of the system between annual enhancement voting. The two international user groups are active voices in the continued development as well. Systems are ever evolving and I have confidence ExLibris is moving in the right direction with Alma and Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We just migrated to Alma this summer, so we're still working out the kinks in our workflow. Not sure if our satisfaction numbers will go up or down in the future! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will be going live with Alma/Primo in January 2017, [...]. Answers here are merely speculative as this is the vendor we chose. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

ExL's latest cloud based products have high potential and are theoretically very good. But in a lot of places they do not seem to have had the input of anyone who worked in a library lately. Expect email support to often take weeks to answer the most basic of questions. The knowledge base seems more like a dictionary than a task oriented howto. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Ex Libris continues to impress with its level of customer support, including forums, discussion lists, product working groups, national and international conferences. As a vendor they are keen to get feedback from libraries to inform the development of all their products. There is strong regional representation as well, which is important for libraries in the Australian/New Zealand region. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in the implementation phase so it is a little early for some of your questions We are scheduled to go live 12-22-2016 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Alma-Primo training was very lacking. After hours of watching video tutorials and receiving on-site (consortium-level) training, we didn't know how to perform basic functions .... fulfillment, course reserves, acquisitions, resource management, or resource sharing when we went live. Migration of e-resources was a disaster. We are still trying to fix broken URLs for ebooks. Course reserves and resource sharing are not working at all in Alma-Primo. We're slowly learning to use Analytics. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Functionality continues to expand, but there are still a lot of rough edges (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

If we were not in a consortia, my scores would have been higher. The consortial capacity is not there. The other significant challenge is the constant loss/change of functionality. It requires far too much maintenance for standard tasks. Serials Management in Alma is less than ideal. Editing Enumeration and Chronology is inconsistent. Automatic updating of holdings records from item records is problematic. URL verification is non existent. URL extraction for bulk editing is impossible. The work involved in testing, providing feedback, and managing monthly new releases leaves little time for value-added initiatives. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Number of items reflects physical items. Electronic items = 129,366 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have not had the [...] service since the end of April 2016. It has been difficult to have III's dedicated attention to have this issue solved and the [...] community is getting frustrated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have had the Alma system for some years. At this stage of development the system feels mature and stable ('stable' in the software engineering sense that it doesn't change rapidly). The Alma and Primo systems fulfil the basic requirements of our library service very well. In the past 6 to 12 months we have become more dissatisfied with the services and support received from Ex Libris due to their responsiveness to issues and the robustness of the hosting platform itself. We have an increasing number of cases in Ex Libris' CRM that are not progressed and quickly as we would like them to be, or according to the priority we would set on them. We have learned the expectation from our software supplier is the onus is with us to chase them regarding support cases and use the various escalation routes to senior managers in the company to get results. The individual staff we deal with are absolutely professional, knowledgeable, supportive, and technically very capable. The problem appears to be more systemic within Ex Libris as a company. As a cloud hosted customer of Alma and Primo, interruptions to hosting in October - November 2016 have troubled us a great deal, and these are still ongoing at the time of writing. Interruptions to service have come at the start of the first semester 2016-17 and so have been extremely disruptive at one of the busiest times of the year. The resulting impression for staff is that Primo is untrustworthy and is generally an unreliable system that may or may not be available at a particular time. It is embarrassing for staff to be faced with freshman students who they cannot teach to use Primo because it is down, and very frustrating for the systems team who cannot do anything other than offer reassurances to our customers and staff that they are working on it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We continue to be pleased with the steady stream of enhancements the product is receiving. Plus tied to the benefits of the system being a cloud based solution, they are readily installed and we benefit from them. The company leadership has remained in place throughout the ownership transfer and has continued to provide solid and exemplary vision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Alma is a steadily improving product (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Comments from various members of the library: I am also not at all impressed with the customer service end – we have at least two service requests in that have been in for months and had very little or no response beyond “we are bumping it to the next level”. I honestly hope I am retired before we ever migrate to another system. I know that sounds harsh, but the last two years have been very trying. I think Alma/Primo are labor intensive, pretty difficult to use, and do an average to below average job of managing our resources. Primo is not user-friendly either. I do love the Summit capability, but again, it’s hard to use. My main complaint that keeps me from really loving A/P is the fact that is has some fabulous bells and whistles but doesn’t facilitate what seem like obvious must haves (ability to have two modules going at once without using multiple browsers, easy manipulation of notices, error proof resource sharing ability, and basically too many options and ways to mess things up). Also, the Alma interface is way to clicky and inconsistent with the display of like functions—hopefully this will be remedied with the new interface. As for ExLibris and customer support, I think it is fairly bad. The lack of support may be due to the size of the operation but it really doesn’t work for “little” problems. We currently have a case in regarding a record that is massively screwed up and we are unable to manipulate it in the way we do other records—it went away for a while so we engaged it again with an order and now it is screwed up again. We’ve been waiting for some help on it since July. We wait. Enough. As for a new ILS, some days I’m up for going back to the card catalog and a notebook with patron’s checkout record. HA! Only some days! I think overall compared to what we'd be able to do on our own as a library, Alma/Primo serve us pretty well as a shared-environment consortium. That said, new releases that change things on us are very frustrating, as is Ex Libris's decision to do away with internal passwords. Their decision to remove functionality of a feature we use and need is unacceptable, hence the low scores in the survey. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Really a mix of positives and negatives for my consortium, detailed below. Ex Libris Knowledge Center is a really positive service – Ex Libris is working hard to document Alma, including new releases (through text and video). Having this information fully open is a huge benefit to its customers, who can locate documentation and training materials through Google. System stability for my consortium has improved in 2016. While there are setbacks from time to time, Ex Libris is showing signs of being a mature cloud services vendor. Ex Libris goes the extra mile in its outreach efforts to the user groups. I can’t understate the importance of this work. In part, it’s what separates Ex Libris from other information vendors (one example, EBSCO, which is currently supporting ILS development). In response to user community concerns, Ex Libris adjusted the Alma release cycles in a positive way for 2017, allowing more time (two weeks) for monthly release testing. Ex Libris is aggressively signing consortia to Alma/Primo toolset, but consortial functionality support is lagging and there are even occasional functionality changes that make the products less compelling as consortial tools. Network Zone functionality is still lacking (examples: managing eresources as a consortium; new Alma Resource Management functionality introduced that doesn't work for the Network Zone) and needs greater resource commitment and focus from Ex Libris. Its effort to remove internal account support with internally-supported passwords is a big deal. Some customers would not have bought the product had this phaseout plan been clear at the time of purchase. This episode demonstrates that Ex Libris needs more management team- and product management-level leaders who have academic library experience. However, with Ex Libris moving more to the enterprise level with new products like CampusM and Leganto, the opposite is more likely to be true and the library focus will probably be weakened. Ex Libris’ management of internal passwords and implementation of Captcha demonstrates a systemic problem with Ex Libris communication to users. By suddenly implementing Captcha system wide, with little notice to users and no publicly stated plan to replace it; and the accidental leak of their plan to phase out internal passwords in a support case, Ex Libris demonstrates that they need a more strategic communication focus, designed to support user adoption of initiatives Ex Libris sees as necessary. As a whole (top level to support staff), the vendor doesn’t take data privacy seriously enough. Ex Libris develops consortial functionality (in resource sharing, Analytics areas) assuming that institutions can fully share data, which isn’t always true. (In terms of the internal account issue noted above, offloading internal account management to its customers does not mean that Ex Libris is more responsible in managing data privacy.) They bring in their data privacy team too late into security issues to be helpful. Ex Libris’ deployment of services like the Alma Link Resolver and bX has run ahead of reporting capabilities. Many Alma libraries have been using bX in production for years and still can’t retrieve data showing how well or how poorly the recommender service drives users to content. (When Ex Libris released the bX product, it produced data from the CSU system, a partner, describing bX's positive impact on user access to content. Now, its own customers can’t retrieve comparable data.) Analytics cannot accurately describe the Link Resolver’s performance in terms of links with/without services. Both of these problems negatively impact Alma’s support for electronic resource access, a data point in this survey. Ex Libris’ heavily-male or all-male representation at user group meetings (in terms of plenary presentations) is frankly embarrassing. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have used Ex Libris products and services for years. It was the best and only choice at the time and, in my opinion, still is. Unfortunately, this means there is essentially no competition for Ex Libris. Ex Libris' customer base has expanded extremely rapidly, perhaps too rapidly, especially in the last year. Problems, especially functionality that used to work and now doesn't, are taking way too long to fix -- often 6-9 months. Communication has often been problematic with Ex Libris. Transparency is not their strong suite. The "accidental" announcement that institutions needed to move off of internal authentication is a prime example of this. Support staff work really hard on the Alma side of things. Users still refer to the "black hole of development." We still have cases in Development from our first year on Alma and they seem no closer to resolution now. Hopefully the too long delayed user interface redesign will solve navigation and some of the smaller problems. There is still a long way to go. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

As we recently migrated to Alma / Primo we are still getting to know the system. We will likely find it more agreeable once we are better acquainted with the system. We are unable to accurately gauge if support for the system has gotten better or worse in the past year as we have not been on the system a full year. Ongoing support for the system seems much less adequate than when we were working with a migration support team. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We look forward to implementing the consortial elements of Alma now the whole of the WHELF consortium in Wales has gone live with Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Went live with Alma (migrated from Aleph) in July 2016, so still relatively new to it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We migrated to Alma and Primo this summer along with the rest of the shared system members of the [...]. Although we are pleased with our decision and excited about the potential of this new system, working it into our day-to-day work has been much harder than we expected. The system just works differently than many staff are used to, and sometimes the issue is just figuring out what something is called in the new system. As the largest member of the shared system, with no experience with an ERM, we have a lot of individual work to do in configuring our electronic resources so that we may get the full benefit of this part of the system, something that was a primary driver in our decision to choose Alma/Primo. We are considering changing a librarian position that will become available this year due to a retirement - the new position would function as a systems and electronic resources librarian (perhaps too much, but we are relatively small) with the responsibility of handling our post-migration as a project and developing a plan and training opportunities for fully incorporating this new system into our work. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Alma requires too many steps to process material. Macros have helped but must be constantly updated with each new release. Ex Libris is working hard to improve Alma but there is a lot to be done. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The workflow for manually handling acquisitions (adding a record to the catalog, attaching a PO line to the record, creating an invoice, and receiving items) feels clunky and labor intensive. This process needs to be streamlined. Our library is too small to consider an open source ILS, as we lack the manpower to implement & manage it. This ILS tries to be flexible enough to meet many libraries' needs, and ends up being far too complicated for smaller libraries like ours. Our library just implemented this ILS in mid-2016, so cannot compare to last year, thus the low rating. A certain number of days of training was promised at implementation, and then reduced without adjusting the price down. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We find support for Alma more responsive than the support for Primo from the same company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very interested in how ProQuest will be integrating the ExLibris/Serials Solutions products. Serials Solutions has been excellent for providing reliable linking and having it seamlessly combined with the ExLibris ILS would be fantastic. . (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The[...] Library migrated less than 3 weeks ago. Migration was well-planned. The ILS looks like it will more than meet our library's needs and it is intuitive. We are excited about the many ways we can analyze our collections for use and to detect problems with access. The Primo front-end has proven difficult to implement for our particular library because we had to manually configure it using spreadsheets as we didn't subscribe to an Ex Libris product for electronic resources management and access. Numerous resources are not appearing. It is unclear if we configured it improperly or if Ex Libris did not apply the configurations properly. A little of both, I think. Also, the usability of the platform is inferior to our last discovery platform, EDS. Still, we are early in the go-live period and the Primo issues may clear up to our satisfaction. Note that we share this new system with CSU-Ft. Collins so our workload during implementation and migration was lighter because they handled many problems with relative ease. Given our limited staff, we would have encountered many more problems if we migrated on our own. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Exlibris are extremely skilled sales people, the system is not as developed as it is claimed to be. The ERM system is woeful in many respects when compared to a competitors product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our greatest issues resolved around the initial training and implementation team. We ended up with a product on time but were not prepared to actually use it. "Train the trainer" was really "train yourself from documentation" in addition to "we did a bunch of stuff in the background that you will need to be able to do in the future but we are not sharing specific documentation on how we did it or why." (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have had some presentations from Ebsco about the FOLIO product. We are keeping a watching brief, but are not interested unless a specific app or module is developed which we could use with our current system. We are quite impressed with Koha and have one library manager with extensive experience in using this product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Ex Libris has shown great advances in innovation and product development of Alma. There are still some issues with digital resources, namely the availability/metadata/display of resources through the discovery service, but I believe as Ex Libris products become better integrated as part of the ProQuest line, this will get better with time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Vendor delivered the major parts of the system on time, but does not comply with the agreed delivery plan for the remaining parts of the agreed-upon functionalities. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

In production on time, but incomplete, i.e. reduced functionality and service to patrons! Extremely unfriendly ILS UI, not at all in complience with WCAG. Most library operations has become 3 times more time comsuming than in our previous ILS. In spite of our dissatisfaction, we are not in a position to consider migration to another ILS, due to economy and consortia solution. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)


Alto

top

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Not regarding automation, but the reason the number of items in library's collection has increased is due to a large purchase of ebooks. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have a hosted service and use the Assist Managed service supplied by Capita. Overall we have been pleased with how the relationship continues to develop. In addition, we are working closely with Capita with regard to the use of the Soprano web based ILS and although some elements are taking time to develop, we have been able to contribute to this product development (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have an old version of their ILS. We are due to upgrade soon (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

During the tender process several LMS suppliers were knocked out due to the discontinuation of using SIP2 for our self-service kiosks and as such I feel that Capita are not the best supplier of an LMS, however they came out top in our scoring during the tender process. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)


Amlib

top

Current vendor was considered when selecting new LMS, however, SirsiDynix was selected after extensive requirements review. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Hopefully, we will have a new LMS by the time of the 2017 survey :-) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Amlib is at end of life, migration has to happen however justifying the cost may be difficult. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We will be moving to a new system in the future. Discussions have opened - we are in the very early stages at present (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have joined a consortium and the group has chosen Symphony from Sirsi Dynix to use as a system in the southwest of WA. Amlib does not appear to be keeping up with technology and we are finding problems and the system is becoming more awkward to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)


Apollo

top

The customer service from Biblionix is fantastic - the best of any vendor I've ever dealt with over the 30+ years that I've worked at this library. So responsive to our needs it is unbelievable, it makes us feel singled out for special treatment though I'm sure all of their customers feel the same. The ILS is wonderful - geared for public libraries in a way that other products cannot match. We love it! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I have had this system for years and wouldn't even consider changing. They keep developing it to better assist our library in meeting the needs of our patrons. I couldn't ask for any better system and customer care than i have with Biblionix. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are exceedingly satisfied with the Apollo product and with the high level of service and product support we are receiving from Biblionix. It is the best ILS on the market for small to midsized public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Biblionix Apollo system is affordable, reliable and intuitive. The product continues to evolve with sensible improvements that actually work. Biblionix remains - by a long chalk - the best ILS vendor I have worked with in my 20 years in the public library field. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We love Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been using Apollo since Aug 1, we are very happy with the product and the level of support we receive from the company. There are still some learning curves that we are going through but nothing that would make us question our decision on Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Biblionix continues to offer new services. In the last year we have utilized Gabbie which allows us to connect with our patrons via text. Apollo automates texts when patron have overdues or need to renew their card. We can also use Gabbie to offer an Ask a Librarian service via text. Another development is the ability of our patrons to choose to keep their reading history and even download it. Though not used by everyone, some patrons really love this feature. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

First, patrons like the home page for the catalog. Having covers of new books scroll across the screen is almost as good as walking into the library at eleven o'clock at night ... or whenever one needs a good book. Second, Biblionix has made getting access to Camelia.net so easy. Checking out electronic books has become very important for this rural library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've had great success with Apollo by Biblionix in serving our very small community (LSA 3,750) over the last 6 years or so. Biblionix's focus on straight-forward reasonable pricing, patron-friendly interface, customer-driven features/services/updates have really made it easy for us to stick with them! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very satisfied with our ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Biblionix continues to offer exceptional customer service and recent enhancements have greatly improved our library's operations. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Apollo from Biblionix is already installed, has been since 2/29/2016. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Biblionix Apollo has been wonderful to work with. The reports are accurate and easily accessed. Best decision ever to migrate to Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The team at Biblionix are always very supportive, listens to our concerns and questions and helps us conquer what ever issue we may have! Although ... we rarely need that help. I am very happy with the service we receive! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We switched from an open-source product, Koha, because our small library did not have the technology expertise to optimize it. We are happy with our new product, Biblionix's Apollo, because it has a very user-friendly (cover-image-heavy) patron interface and a staff-friendly back end. Staff can catalog without memorizing MARC field numbers and subfield codes, we no longer have to complete extra steps to make lists of new items available to patrons, and our catalog integrates automatically with our state's interlibrary loan service and with our OverDrive account. Drawbacks to Apollo are that it lacks some features and abilities that come standard in most large catalogs. In many cases, but not all, the company has been able to add these. For instance, we have a one-week holding period for reserved items; Apollo could not initially handle that length. The developers were able to program it for us, though. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We were thrown into the deep end when our Athena program crashed in 2014 and Apollo was able to provide and fulfill all our needs. Their support has been phenomenal and they listen to their customers and try and succeed in fulfilling their needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Excellent customer service. They are always responsive to our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have only been working with our new ILS for 5 months, but really like it so far. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Excellent customer service, very responsive, open to suggestions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS (Biblionix) provides excellent library system; support is very good (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library is very satisfied with Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The vendor is not flexible with developments, and does not work well with third party applications. The customer service is not what I expect from a professional standpoint. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Apollo/Biblionix has been the most accomodating and the best customer service of any we have used and they are in tune with what small libraries need. We are very happy with all the services they supply and the on line catalog which has our book cover shots just as soon as we add them to the catalog. We have absolutly no reason to look for another vendor and cannot forsee doing so in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] is a very small rural library and Apollo is close to perfect for our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Biblionix has been fantastic to work with. The personal customer service we receive from them, and the timely response to any issues we have make the program the best we have worked with since automating in 1995. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I have no plans of changing providers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)

We do not currently have any electronic resources. We are very small and the library at the county seat has Overdrive so we cannot justify the cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We find Biblionix very responsive to our ideas to make the system better. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Apollo is the best company we have ever worked with for an ILS product, their customer service is tops! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We use Biblionix Apollo and are very satisfied. Every time we contact Biblionix with a question, the staff has always responded promptly and with the information we are requesting. We are very pleased with the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Biblionix tech team listens to our suggestions and creates solutions that are librarian oriented. They shape the product to our needs rather than giving us ways to shape our needs to their product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small)

Extremely pleased with Apollo (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Athena

top

We continue to use Athena even though the company was absorbed by Follett and is no longer supported -- hence the response to questions regarding support. The biggest downside to the current system is that we are not able to put our catalog on-line but other than that is works. We hope to migrate to a new ILS in the next couple years and have been looking at various OS options. We are also considering something like ResourceMate. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] We are always interested in research comparisons of vendors & products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Atriuum

top

VERY SATISFIED WITH OUR SYSTEM, AUTIRRUM AND BOOK SYSTEMS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Excellent overall system for smaller public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

There are glitches in the system...reporting. the handling of reserves, the catalog display on public access computers, which Book Systems personnel seem unable to correct or even pinpoint the cause. Although the customer service team does return calls...it takes a while and the problem tickets never seem to be resolved. That said, this is a good system overall for the price and Book Systems seem to be trying to improve it. Had I a larger staff that could stay on top of the issues and the amount of necessary call backs we might receive solutions to our little problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Very happy with our product. They are always coming up with value added content that makes our jobs easier. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The report interface is not as user friendly as it should be. Often, after calling technical support, I find we can not run the type of report I would like. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are well pleased with our Atriuum ILS, and its potential for growth. We currently are an onsite installation, but when we have more of our collection cataloged, we can roll into the cloud based system to allow more access. The folks at Book Systems are great, never condescending (when it is operator error), and very prompt. Open source is not really an option for us, we don't have in house tech support and honestly, it is just to big a learning curve with all the other hats I wear. Because we are an endowed library, and not part of the state-wide system, we don't have to worry about our catalog being integrated, although as a matter of good practice, we comply with and adhere to the NorLN (WV) cataloging rules and Atriuum meshes with Sierra well in that respect. I think we are a ways away from needing or benefiting from a discovery interface in our remote, rural area as a stand alone. Thanks for including us in your survey, and thanks for all you do for libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Atriuum is great! Our branch library is (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

My biggest problem is with the wording of the reports. I can never find anything I want. I don't work with them everyday so that makes it difficult to remember go here to find that. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

I love our Atriuum but would like to see some changes in the system. such as Fines it has 3 boxes we are to click , Pay - Waive - Delete. I wished it had a box that was for Hold. we might need to delete the books but keep the amount attached to the account but Don't Waive or Pay the amount owed. It could just show on their account. If we need to look up the books we can always go to the patron's history. At this moment this is my biggest concern. We want to be able to delete a book from the system but keep the Fines attached to the account. Thank u. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Book Systems is expensive but meets our needs and has a great support group that quickly responds to questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Small church library. Book Systems Atiruum meets our needs. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS is installed on library-owned server which does not support all the functions of the ILS that we would like to implement. Cost for vender-hosted ILS is prohibitive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We just completed our Migration to Atriuum. So we are still getting used to how it works. As with all systems there are things you like and things you wonder why they work that way. My training was excellent and I also like there are training videos available. Support has been awesome! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Book Systems allows direct interaction between library directors/tech services librarians and their engineers to make sure they understand our suggestions for improvements and how we want their system to work. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I would not switch to an open source product. Technology is moving too fast to depend on open source functionality and stability. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our primary concern with Book Systems, at this point, is the difficulty in protecting patron privacy. Right now, Book Systems keeps an indefinite history of every item checked out by every patron. Without an update from Atriuum, deleting this history will delete all checkout history, including history that is useful to keep, like overdues, lost items, etc. Discussions with Atriuum yielded no middle ground. It's an all or nothing proposition. While we are not particularly unhappy with Book Systems (it lacks in some features and usability we would like), the inability to adequately protect our patrons' privacy is our main reason for beginning the search for a new ILS within the next year or two. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

I am very satisfied with our system and tech support it provides. I am non-tech savvy and they are very patient and super helpful to me every time i call with a new problem!!! (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Considering Aspencat because many Colorado libraries have the same system and can interface and have interlibrary loans, as well as e-resources, through those libraries. And the annual cost is less. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We've incorporated the school district's three library collections into our database, which is why our number more than doubled from last year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Attriuum

top

We just converted to Attriuum from Athena last May 2016. Really could not answer all questions to truth because we are still learning (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Aurora

top

This library is a part of the [...] group under the auspices of [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Appreciate having a local vendor with a team who consistently strive to innovate and improve. The interface for the Aurora Desktop could be improved - it isn't very flexible with small fonts and lots of clicking. The Montage discovery layer looks good and is to be implemented shortly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Axiell Aurora

top

Some troubleshooting goes through consortium (ie. things that affect everybody) and some we make ourselves (ie. things that affect everybody, but only one library needs, like mass change off addresses). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Axiell's Aurora works now fine. Coming is new version without Silverlight and Java. Using html 5. Competition is hard and libraries are poor... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Basis

top

TechLib is no longer being actively developed by its owner. It is a legacy system. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)


bicatWise

top

It's a Java based application. Unnecessary complicated to use for statistics Administrative system should be rebuild in my opinion (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


BOOK-IT

top

We are, together with six other public libraries, planning to migrate to a shared system next year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Book-it is old fashion and the system is a patchwork of different solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

There are not so many systems for public libraries in Sweden, and the one we have is the biggest, so it's easier for us to keep to this than change to one that is not som common and not used to public libraries at our size. And - they have been better and more conserned about our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


CBL

top

The system referred to is NOT an ILS but only an OPAC that collects data from various sources and interacts with others acting as a metaopac (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)


CDS/ISIS

top

No usamos formalmente un SIGB, sino que hemos desarrollado y programado nuestro propio entorno de trabajo sobre la base de la plataforma ISIS y los desarrollos de BIREME para la Web. Tenemos nuestro propio soporte técnico, no dependemos de una empresa privada. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Cloud Libraries

top

NuGen has only one person keeping up the database. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)


CyberTools for Libraries

top

Question regarding discovery products: I am not looking for one for my library itself, but assisting our consortium with looking at different discovery options for smaller private / special / corporate libraries or archives. If we find something, I would then most likely use it with the consortium, but otherwise, I am not looking at this time. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


DB/TextWorks

top

Presto Cloud has the Taxonomy feature - which allows us to: - create a virtual 'browsable' shelf - integrate print and electronic holdings on the virtual shelf - file items in more than one place on the shelf (able to create multiple taxonomy strings to the item) Users can browse the whole collection without having to key in any search terms (if they wish to) This provides another layer of access - to complement the traditional 'simple' and 'advanced' search features. We are a demo site for Presto Cloud for DB/TextWorks. For this reason we have received exceptional unsolicited support from the US vendor during the past 18 months. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Destiny

top

The vendor of our ILS has the opportunity to improve their product through the integration of features embedded within another product they own. I know it is not a simple process but having had this second product for over 10 years now I would think they could/would have made some progress toward improvement of what I see as their programs main problem. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have a very limited budget and so can not afford to move to a larger ILS geared more towards small Academic Libraries. FSC's Destiny is the most affordable and useful for our needs at this point. It is also easy to train our student work-study assistants to use. We would like to have a Discovery Service but because our institution will not use a proxy server we had a bad experience with our previous Discovery Service. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Follett's Destiny program is a good tool because it offers more than just checking books into and out of the library. It also offers Destiny Quest, databases, and web searching. It is a very useful tool. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

NA (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Not having used any other system, I am happy with the Follett system. I do not know what open source is. The most difficult area is finding the information for our end of year reports. I will have to call for support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Many features of the OPAC require that patrons be logged in. Our school district requires a secure password. It is hard to manage these with an elementary age students. I am currently trying to work out a possible guest password which could allow some functionality for my students. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are so small we do not have a technology department to help implement an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I wish it had a feature that would make it easy to look up a patron's circulation history. We are able to see how many items that they check out for any period of time, but not an actual listing of the items. Some patrons would be interested in having this info available. Some of the reports are more challenging to obtain on the Destiny program than the previous program. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our district switched systems at the end of the last school year (June 2016) from Alexandria to Destiny. I was surprised at the ease of the conversion, and I have been, for the most part, pleased with the new system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The management of print resources by Destiny's latest version is very good; however the shift to integrate both digital ebooks (text) and audio books has encountered many problems, such as issues with cross-platform reliability (iOS versus Android, with the latter being problematic) and the many layers of clicking to get the digital files to download to patron devices. This situation may be more reflective of the general tech capabilities in this age rather than a weakness with Follett and its Destiny software, however. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Destiny is very functional, but it's not at all intuitive either from the librarian's perspective or the users' perspective. I used Alexandria in the past, and I liked it much better. I would switch back in a minute if it weren't a district-wide decision. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Although they are not perfect, they are very responsive to our technology issues and solve our problems usually with one phone call. The software meets our needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am the district librarian, so do not have a collection of my own. My answers reflect the information for the district. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

This information is provided for our three K-12 libraries. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The company continues to make cuts that damage customer service and worsens service received every year. They were once the best. Now they are mediocre at best. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The search feature on Follett Destiny is clumsy and ineffective. A simple title search, even when results are sorted on "relevance" pulls up extraneous items. When working with students and trying to teach them the *power* of libraries this is a major impediment and disappointment. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

The search, especially for elementary, is terrible. When looking for a book titled "Smile", it doesnt even appear on the first page. "Star Wars" doesnt even put "star wars" books to the top. even if type something into search, the first results should be MATCHING TITLES! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The one area where all vendors currently fall short is in providing meaningful deep search of electronic resources, including electronic books and database in a single interface. All of the current discovery interfaces are crude, prioritize poorly, and do not allow enough local control to permit customization that meets user needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

As one school within the school district, we have very little say about what system we use, whether it is to be replaced, and if os, whether we would stay with the same vendor, etc. so some of the above questions are not really relevant to our situation. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall we are pleased with our ILS and vendor. We are slow however, to implement the latest versions due to our network environment and comments about challenges experienced by other customers who are members of the online community. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Problems - There was one issue with a digital jacket cover (being the wrong one), it took a few calls and sevral technitions but it was finally rectified, after 2 months. Also, searchability in Destiny Quest does not link to other district libraries as does the destiny interface. Lastly, the catalog does not sort title searches well, should have an exact match such as "ghosts" by telgemeier, the catalog brings up all titles with ghost; ghosts being last on the search list. Same with "the selection" etc. Kudos - Thank you for linking my digital materials with the grneral catalog! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Their interface is becoming more user friendly. I am waiting on the new update to really see what Follett really has to offer. I also am happy with the interface with other company's ebooks and interactive books. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Destiny is geared for K-12 libraries. We are a small public library. We chose Follett Destiny based on a number of factors, price being the deciding factor. Destiny limits our display options and editing functionality. It does not manage electronic resources that are purchased through vendors other than Follett well. Their customer support is great-- professional and helpful withing the functionality of the ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I wish there wasn't a middle man. We used to have Alexandria and I dealt directly with the company. Problems were solved immediately now we wait and wait. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have no idea what my "true" library's collection amounts to, since the system does a poor job of counting any electronic sources other than it's own vendor's ebooks in the circulation stats. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

10,000 is just the print collection (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am very pleased with this library system. What is displeasing is the updating of the system due to our limited technology resources and funding in the district. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We like Destiny, but have ongoing frustration about when major updates are released. Our school starts in late August, and more than once, Destiny has instituted major updates after school starts so that when we are with a class giving a beginning-of-the-year orientation, our old instructions suddenly no longer work. We then have all the work of updating and changing our website and instructions in print and on websites and wikis. Updates need to be announced ahead of time and implemented earlier in the summer so there is time before school begins to learn about the changes and update instructions, lessons, websites, etc. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Very satisfied with Destiny Follett. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Consideration to move to OSS ILS is an outcome to new state laws that are driving consolidation of administration and decision making from local school level to district levels. The move would be to create equity of access for all learners in the districts. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

not sure what I was doing? (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our school district person in charge of this is not as knowledgeable or responsive as we would like. More information/training is need to be aware of the full scope and capabilities of Destiny Library manager, especially on the textbook end. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am brand new to this library so there's a lot I don't know yet. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Follett is inflexible and not particularly adaptive. It hasn't changed much in the 12 or 13 years I've been using it, and seems to be quite outdated. The help search function hasn't changed at all in many years despite the fact that it is now web-based. There are few options to customize reports, and frequently finding the info I want takes several tries before I figure out a) if it's the report I need, and b) how to adjust the settings to get what I want. Searching within the catalog is limited and clunky. An improvement in customer service was the big PR push last year, but my few interactions with CS have not been positive. I generally use other librarians or the internet to get the help I need. The one exception is when I email a question. I generally get a prompt answer. Do not love Follett Destiny, but apparently since there is little competition, it seems they don't really have to try very hard to be #1 (in sales, not customer satisfaction). (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are not yet satisfied with the Discovery interface. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

includes equipment, ebooks & audiobooks (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am not terribly thrilled with the company, they have a habit of pushing upgrades during the school year . If there are many new features coming at one time, this can be difficult for a single part-time librarian with no help. However. I can't say enough about [...] the Follett consultant supplied to us through the local BOCES. She and her staff are wonderful in alerting us to possible glitches with upgrades, helping us find work-arounds and advocating with company. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

more options for barcode labels, spine labels, records, etc - in other words, ability to make things like that have more information (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

There are some features that I wish we could change such as when a child scans a book that is currently checked out in another child's name it should just switch it to the child that actually has the book but it doesn't. I have to stop and click yes to make it change. It is the little things that I wish could be improved. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Many issues that we have encountered can be attributed to the fact that our system goes through our ISD, including the contract settlements. Problems are most often related to issues involving the infrastructure from the ISD as opposed to the actual product. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our district has been very pleased with our automation system since we migrated from Athena to Destiny. The yearly support is worth the upgrades provided that give us more versatility. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

These decisions are not up to me. They are made at the District level and I don't know anything about contracts, etc. We don't have e-book because we are not a one to one device school. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

This is my first year as a Media Specialist, so I am basing this on my knowledge of the last few months and my previous knowledge as a user. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are a group of libraries within a school district and I have do not deal with problems directly with the LS. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We love this product. I'm glad Destiny Quest will be leaving and Universal Search is here. It works much better. I loved the concept of Destiny Quest but it seemed incomplete. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I love Destiny. All 4 schools in our district use it. Most of the schools in our county use it. I am looking forward to upgrading to their most recent system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Very helpful company and people. Product meets our needs very well..... (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Most of this survey is off target for what we do in the schools. We have a second survey that is strictly for our district libraries. We do not see or implement, only utilize. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The district takes care of our library system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am not have contact with vendors. I am happy about our system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I would like the ability to print MARC records with copy information when inputting new materials individually. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

It irritates me that the system can keep track of so many things and that the librarian is now the one responsible [i.e.nothing for you to worry about, it is a district issue] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been very please with the service/MICase server connection. The Follett/Destiny system has been a wonderful asset for our library. We continue to learn of new ways to do things not previously dealt with in daily activities. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am just the librarian. All the system decisions are made at our central office. I like the program and have had no problem with it, so I skipped the questions that did not apply to me. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I would recommend a more comprehensive training process when providing Destiny to a new customer. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

n/a (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Most of the technical aspects of our program is done through our Central Office, [...]. Please contact him concerning additional resources. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used the Follett automation systems starting with Athena and moving to Destiny. We have both Library and Textbook Manager and have been happy with the stability and usability of the platform. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I would really appreciate having fewer mouse-strokes when printing a user receipt for items checked out from this library. When I have completed a user's checkout, I generate a receipt for that patron. To do so I have to press the RECEIPT button, the PRINT button, the "Check Out" tab, and re-click on the FILE dialog box in order to be ready for the next patron. I have over 500 kids weekly come through the library, who borrow 1 to 3 books each, & every child gets a receipt. If I could get down to fewer mouse strokes when generating receipts it would save me more time after book checkout for teaching, which is equally important as library books. The one item I did not respond to above: I am not sure what is a discovery interface for a collection that is separate from the ILS. Sorry I could not respond to this. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Follett eBooks are old-fashioned and clunky to use. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sorry not much help to you. I was not active in the library when this was put in. We are a small school and no longer employ a librarian. I need a system that the kids can check out books without adult supervision. Fewer key strokes -- so they can get it done between classes. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Vendor maintains software pretty well, but has become very lax on responding to orders timely or accurately. Will be keeping catalog system, but switching to a new title vendor. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our system works fine, but we are not in any other alliances. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have not had to call Follett Tech Support this year, but sometimes in the past I got someone who didn't know what he was doing. I would call again and get completely different directions. Every time I called I would hope the person knew the answer to my problem and would steer me right. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Some features are not compatible with running reports for elementary library students. I need a teacher name on all reports and some flexibility as to how to read certain reports. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

To get a report from the system takes most of a day and should only take less then five minutes. Way too hard to do reports when you only do them a couple times a year. Does not work well for a public library at all. Would like it to be able to communicate with [...]. It takes way to clicks to do things. When in marc record I want the whole marc record and not pieces no matter where I'm in. Program is way too finicky. I'm tech savvy and still have to call tech support. Out in the field we are not masters in Technology. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

I am a new Media Specialist. I hope I answered this questions correctly. The major decisions regarding things such as our systems is done on a district level. I do, however, feel comfortable with Destiny and am learning all of the various features it has. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am part of a consortium which is so amazing! They take care of so many details which gives me the time to be a librarian. My only concern is the cost to small schools, such as mine. We are charged for the high school and the elementary school though we often use the combined catalog to find items. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I find the making suggestions for improvements process for Follett to be a pain. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I often find myself saying, "Well obviously, Destiny was not designed by librarians." I wish that I could search by specific MARC record fields, like publisher. I'm not wild about the posting order options with Destiny (who decides this relevance?) nor the filters provided for public searches. And don't get me started on the ebooks! Too many clicks!! Destiny Discover is making ebooks and open source a bit better...but it looks awful (I'm hoping that's because it is still in Beta) and is not pleasing to the eye at all. While the Help search on Destiny leaves MUCH to be desired (I can't find the instructions for some tasks even though I'm am searching by what Follett calls the task; I have to Google it and watch Youtube to understand how to do something), I do find the Follett customer support people to be excellent and I love Titlewave to order books. I keep hoping the Destiny Updates will make me happy. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am quite pleased with all aspects of Follett, including all of its products. The customer service is outstanding, and they go above and beyond to make sure we, the customers, are happy and satisfied. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

would not let me put in a number for items in the collection, which is about 15,000 (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Customer service with Follett Destiny is courteous, knowledgeable, and actively works to resolve issues. There are issues that cannot seem to be resolved but efforts have been made to do so. Overall I am satisfied with this product and the customer service provided. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The trainer that first implemented this system no longer works at our district. There is no one in place to help answer questions. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

There are two issues that need improvement. First We need a "did you mean" component. Middle school kids are terrible spellers and the system stops their searches immediately almost every time with no option as to how to continue. Therefore, the kids don't use the search system. They ask the librarian if we have the book and where it is. Secondly the cross referencing needs improvement. Thanks for asking. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

I would like for there to be a simple way to update call numbers across the library. For example, I have integrated our paperbacks in with our hardbacks and would like to remove the PB prefix to our call numbers. I have also moved to a Dewey system that utilizes whole numbers and not decimals. I would like to do a universal update in my catalog. Basically, I have a number of cataloging things that I would like to change, but Destiny requires me to make changes one title at a time. I would like to be able to do updates through a spreadsheet program like MS Excel. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I would like more options in the reports. I would like to have more options to limit by and more options to include data in reports. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I LOVE Destiny, Follett, Titlewave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

our library is a books only library. Technology is in classrooms and computer lab . (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am disappointed in the frequent changes to customer service representatives from Follett. At the last conference I attended, the Follett rep asked who my local rep was, then looked it up when I didn't know-- then realized I didn't have one. When I first started, we had excellent customer service, but the reps change so frequently, I never have any idea who I'm going to talk to. This is frustrating when I've been using the company for almost 10 years. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I like the new Destiny Discover online catalog layout. It's so much easier for the students to use. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am part of a large district. I do not make the decision about our system. Some of my answers would have been I don't know or maybe, if that had been an option. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Destiny is a great product and Follet has amazing custom support. We are very happy with this system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I could not be any happier with this product! By far, Destiny is superior to any of the other library automation systems we have ever used. It provides consistently good records, if not already found in our database. Destiny is so good we use OCLC very little. It features easy access to reports and ease in accomplishing all tasks we need to perform daily. The technology support is phenomenal. Since we "inherited" this from those who have retired, I've had many questions. They are answered promptly and on the first call. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I had a bad experience or two with customer service when it comes to Follett. When companies get too big, they don't connect with one another very well. One portion of Follett won't always know how to transfer correctly, and when there's a disconnection I have to start all over with my question. As a teacher and librarian it's difficult to manage my time when this happens. On the other hand, Follett does a great job managing the book collection and I see that good things are happening with the ebooks. I like the changes that are happening, and as long as Follett doesn't cut jobs and stretch out the duties among their current workers things should figure themselves out. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I like Destiny and have not explored other options as of yet. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The main problem that I have with Destiny is that Follett does not act on requests for product changes. Suggestions to allow printing labels to standard labels that can be purchased other than from a library supply company are apparently ignored. Also, suggestions for additional kinds of reports are apparently ignored. These should be rather simple changes since some labels allowed are Avery and available locally, but other Avery sizes are not a choice in the system. Being able to print reports such as weeding in EXCEL or other regular software programs would be wonderful. These are the kinds of suggestions apparently ignored as of today. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

I am a new media specialist, I have only been using the system for a couplr of weeks, but I have found the system to be very user friendly and helpful. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

O-KAY (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Follett is very timely in response to support needs and is effective as a user-friendly automation system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Most of the decisions for this type of thing are made at the district level so I don't have as much say in what is done. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I love Destiny couldn't run my library without it. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are being ask to catalog technology items such as Chromebooks. Having marc records of these items would be great. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I had another ILS product before this one and I liked how searches were matched more closely to the words in the search. In the Destiny, random books that have nothing to do with the search come up in the search. The other thing I hate is the patron screen. Even though you are there and you are doing a patron search if you don't push patron books come up! I really hate that!! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The survey answers relate to [...] Library/Textbook Services -- the district's management department for all district libraries and textbooks. (Library type: Other; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

It would be nice to have Destiny be more googlish when students are trying to spell a word in the search. Destiny Quest makes spellings suggestions but the regular search does not. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Please consider changing the color of the interface as well as the tabs. We miss them! Thank you (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Having moved from Mandarin M3 to Follett in 2013, the only thing I miss about M3 is the reports section. The reports in M3 are fantastic and I miss that ability to really see the details of a collection so easily. Would I move back? Oh no. Follett Destiny (hosted by Follett) makes my life as a solo practitioner so, so much easier. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am not aware of any discussion about discovery interface, or open source as it pertains to my school library. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

N/A (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We use this system for 3 years and we had some problems about patron's record and print labels. I can not print labels on system because of different measures and standarts and I have to use another barkod program. Patron's record is a problem. Students change every year and I can not update their information automaticly. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

My previous system showed the student's homeroom when his book was checked in. This was extremely helpful. When I check in books from 5 classes, I cannot tell if books were returned by the students that will be coming to the library that day, If, while I am checking in books, I see the books from a specific homeroom I know that they have remembered to bring their library books to the library. Not having that feature really stinks. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Very expensive. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Basically this library is navigating in its own, there is no monitoring of any kind to probably better use of the system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Destiny online catalog is fine and the customer service is fine, but you have to call, there is no good documentation. I would love to see linked online documentation that was useful, not just definitions, but HOW to do things. The other issue I have with this software is that the reports are not very flexible and even the report builder will not do what I would like (generate notices for people who have overdues that are on hold for other students). Some of it is basic, like I would like to select multiple classes to run overdue notices for, instead of having to run for a series of classes, alphabetically. The recent update only changed the look--still not very inspired and words are still too small. Overall, it is an easy system to use, and I don't have any complaints on a daily basis. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

For questions on how the program works, I have mostly gotten great help, however when I had a server crash and had to reinstall destiny on a new server, it took 2 days before my ticket was escalated to someone who actually knew how to do all of that. A lot of wasted hours on my part. (yours too) (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Follett has always been wonderful in answering all the questions I have had during my career as a library tech. The representatives are always ready to assist with any questions I have asked. Thank you very much [...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am answering from the district office, which I oversee, as a result of a new librarian being employed at this site. Did not even know about this survey, and I oversee all 58 school libraries in this district. Please add me to your list for future surveys. Also, I would like to know how you get the National Center for Educational Statistics information. IS it provided locally by our district or do you obtain via the Center itself? Thanks for your assistance. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The search functionality and reports portion of Destiny has always been our biggest complaint. They came out with an update recently that was an improvement but still it is lacking in these areas. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Destiny's recent upgrades seem to be directed to the textbook inventory component of their software. There has been little attention paid to improving the library administration in the past several years. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

They don't listen to the challenges we have but just interested in the subscription fee. I'm stack due to such poor customer service . (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

The Library management system is fine. Our District's Student Management System which is from same vendor, currently limits our Internet Resources a little as they have not been trained sufficiently at our District Level (through our own administration's choices and changes). Our I.T. is limited and for the present time, this system is the best fit for our school district. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Unfortunately our Library Board originally purchase circulation software designed for schools, not public libraries. Our current software cannot perform many of the tasks useful for a public library easily and it requires an exceptional amount of work to identify patrons who are no longer active. However, as our circulation desk is staffed almost entirely by elderly volunteers, some who only volunteer for desk duty once a month, the thought of trying to retrain them to a new system when they are already daunted by technology in general would likely cause many to drop out and trigger a staffing emergency. Still something I want to consider, but as I am the only professional staff and am only hired for 10 hours per week the task of evaluating new software and migrating to it seems daunting. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Follett has changed a number of things with the updates in Destiny and they have been positive changes. Most notably searches are clearer and once set up more efficient. The Follett app does not work on android devices and though answered quite quickly I was fobbed off with a non-answer. I have put in two requests to the tech team to no avail. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS was designed for a school library, but in fact we're a public library for the entire community. We don't have it within our budget or available resources to go through the process of changing over the system. The main thing I don't like about Follett is that its design and catalog focus is juvenile. (Library type: National; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

My library is only one of 37 schools within the [...] Consolidated ISD. The answers only reflect[...] not those in the entire district. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The current vendor has a focus on schools. As we are a public library, the system doesn't meet our needs. I can't speak to how the company works for their target customer base. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

Follett has been a reliable vendor for many years, but some of the customer support in the current market and environment--especially with respect to integration with other electronic platforms, and full functionality and utilization--could be more proactive and customized. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The reporting is terrible. I could do more with the old DOS Winnebago program (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The schools in our county use what our Board of Education gives us. As far as I'm concerned, I am very satisfied with the Follett/Destiny Library system. Some of the above questions/survey I did not answer as I am not the person to purchase these things. It would be on the level of our County Board Office. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

no comment (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My only issue with Destiny is that it is not sip2 compliant. We could not acquire self-checkers from other suppliers because of that matter. Follett has a number of RFID equipment and devices but they are not as modern as compared to the other suppliers. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Cannot navigate easily between open pages. Most often one must return to the beginning page & start all over again with a new search. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

This is the least expensive ILS alternative for us at this time (not including open source) and it is highly efficient and effective in meeting our needs. The cost factor is important to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Completely satisfied with Follet meets all of our needs as well as is affordable (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

My biggest problems with Destiny are: * limited District-level reporting, although library reporting is often good * lack of flexibility - no keyboard shortcuts, what can be done in one area can often not be applied in another area * inability to customize for individual libraries or District, development is slow * even with recent improvements, Destiny still clunky and we have been using it since 2007 (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)


DIGIBIB

top

[...] is a thematic virtual library that manages only digital versions of the works it that collects. Similarly, for the Polymath Virtual Library are fundamental MARC21 authority records, the enrichment of these records wiht Linked Open Data resources (DBpedia, VIAF, datos.bne.es, id.loc.gov, List of Subject Headings in SKOS ), and its participation in Hispana and Europeana, and therefore needs to be able to provide metadata through an OAI-PMH repository according to Europeana Data Model. The [..] also offers some of the works in EPUB for free download. These requirements are fulfilled by our SIGB. Se trata de una Biblioteca Virtual temática que gestiona únicamente versiones digitales de las obras que recopila. Igualmente, para la Biblioteca Virtual de Polígrafos son fundamentales los registros de autoridad MARC21, el enriquecimiento de estos registros con recursos Linked Open Data (DBpedia, VIAF, datos.bne.es, id.loc.gov, Lista de Encabezamientos de Materia en SKOS), y la participación en Hispana y Europeana, y por tanto poder proporcionar registros a través de un repositorio OAI en Europeana Data Model. También la Biblioteca Virtual de Polígrafos ofrece algunas de las obras en EPUB para su descarga gratuita. Estos requisitos los cumple nuestro SIGB. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)


EOS.Web

top

We're happy with EOS International. Our contract is up and we're just seeing what other developments are on the market. Primarily just looking to save on costs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We integrate our discovery platforms through our website, [...], rather than through EOS.web. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

None (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

With a few minor 'bumps' the change from EOS Intl to Sirsi Dynix was uneventful and the product is still a good value and works wonderfully. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I think the product is very good, could be better thru better communication and interaction with the customers (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

we are still working on replacing features and functions that existed in our previous custom library system, but with downsized staffing, are not keeping up with this as I would like. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is shocking that EOS has clients at all. Basic reports necessary for weeding were never even devised, and one cannot print out circulation receipts without switching back and forth between a receipt printer and a regular document printer. It is as if EOS was never intended to be used by libraries at all. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

would like better and easier report functionality for this system. (Library type: Military; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

EOS.com is past its prime. We keep it because the role of print in our research protocol is diminishing and the cost is reasonable. We've adapted our operations model to the "Research Center as a service rather than as a place." If EOS' business plan was to remain relevant the company would have pioneered the development of tools that enable us to do our jobs in alignment with how our services evolved. We leverage and deliver expensive content using products like Osmosys, Manzama and InfoNgen. EOS should have been innovating to develop tools that effectively manage and deliver electronic services and login credentials of our users like Research Monitor and OneLog. Such services provide analytics on how we use the content. It enables us to negotiate content agreements with vendors so we purchase what we need and use. We are producing and delivering data analytics using tools like Tableau. While we never "shushed" we are no longer managing "stuff" we are integral members of our external client service team. We possess particular expertise that moves our service teams forward. We bill our time. My job has never been so challenging and rewarding. Marshall, special libraries are different from public and academic libraries. We exist because of our parent organization. Some of us hold doctoral subject level education allowing us to work with highly skilled and demanding patrons. Many Special Libraries are in a profit making environment. The drivers of our business decisions are often different for us that of public and academic institutions. We reinvented our services to meet our patron and parent organization's needs. We now use more complex technological tools and employ staff with higher level skills and education. I wish EOS would have been a part of the reinvention. Instead, it was innovating on the basis of votes on a listserv. Marshall, the Automation Survey would have more relevance to me if it covered the tools and services that Special "Libraries" (we have not used the term library or any variants in 8 years.) are using with great success. Such data may help all ILS vendors recognize the actual needs of their customer base and innovate accordingly. I do not think EOS.com is forward facing enough form the R&D perspective. Will SirsiDynix phase it out? Our Research function has three sections; Research , Applications & Technologies, and Operations. Technical services functions is included in operations but is not a key function. Eight years ago we had nine TS staff members; 6 of whom were clerical. Now we have three staff who perform TS roles like cataloging and collections development as part of their jobs. However Operations staff number 6 (including the three mentioned above,) We have one clerical staff person and 5 who rank as MLS level employees. The tools we are using enabled us to automate clerical tasks and focus on more challenging and innovative service to our parent organization. Were I to be evaluating EOS.com as our primary tool, my comments would cover the same old issues. See the examples below for a sample: WORKFLOW - must follow the EOS.com flow requiring many workarounds for us. EOS allows few local institution capability to edits fields, displays, reports or other options. BIB RECORDS - Editing records with many copies and/or many items is inefficient. Unless it is a global edit, editing is troublesome. REPORTS - even the report writer add-on cannot capture all the fields in a record. There is a picklist and not all fields are available. Thus reports are limited. EOS did a workaround report for shelf list called Shelf List Columns. This no longer works. We need to run several reports and manipulate the data in Tableau to creat a more fulsome report. LABELS - EOS cannot deliver labels in a word format, editing circulation labels is cumbersome and very restricted. We use a Demco template as a work around. Thus we can bold spine labels and titles on the few pockets & cards labels we need. We can use larger and easier to read fonts. Routing labels are arranged in an inappropriately small font. Our office services staff have difficulty reading the routee names and locations. Producing labels and essential functions of an ILS should not be so painful. However we route less than 40 print titles now. EOS should be discovering, developing and offering services that fill current needs of subscribers. The notion of developing a module (reference tracking) for the specific needs of a single firm willing to pay for it and then trying to market it to other customers doesn't make sense. EOS should research the market, assess the need and develop the module that makes sense for most customers. Then if customization is required the particular firm can pay for that service. Our work around was to use another vendor to meet reference tracking, statistical reports and integrating with our parent organization's time and billing product. EOS.com and other ILS vendors should have been there for us. I believe that vendors should be working and maintaining a constant dialog with innovative customers. They need better R&D. Please understand there is not a single individual from EOS that I have met or worked with that I believe is doing anything but their best work to serve EOS.com clients. The Customer Support is terrific. They are professional and responsive. Those I have worked with the most include, Jeff Smith, Daniel Fitz-Enz, and Debbie Washington. My comments apply to them but to all EOS.com staff. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We have weeded our outdated print collection significantly and need a much simpler system to manage that collection only. All other resources are accessed through databases or our discovery service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

EOS is a small system that has been acquired by a large company, we have been impacted by this merger and we see room for improvement. For this most part we are very happy with EOS. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

EOS will soon need an overhaul in the way it handles serials control. Managing serials is still quite a manual operation, requiring many clicks to complete functions. EOS also needs to re-evaluate its authority control functions. At present authority control functionality is very manual at best and illogial at worst. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Evergreen

top

We have been with Evergreen for several years. Our consortium has been able to create code to satisfy users' needs. in partnership with other consortia positive changes have been implemented. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Evergreen -- Equinox Software

top

We currently have an open source ILS, Evergreen. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There are definitely issues related to the vendor, but there are also issues related to the consortium administration. They are an additional layer that is not very responsive to the needs of all the members. There is also a level of arrogance at that level that they know what is best for us. it makes it difficult to tell if the problems are with the vendor or the consortium staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our ILS is Evergreen hosted and supported by Equinox. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The search engine is not as flexible as patrons would like. The staff is always helping patrons with searches that did not find the correct results. I hate to complain since we cannot always have the "Google" model. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

You need to include N/A options for these questions. My answers to all of the questions that involve a "company" or "vendor" are bogus because we have no company or vendor with Evergreen, but there was no option for me to choose to indicate that. Your footnote does not help because we don't have any other organizations or companies involved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Evergreen keeps being upgraded constantly through working with other Evergreen customers. [...] is one organization that coordinates future upgrades, reducing costs and quickly getting improvements into the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Open source Evergreen has been a great success, allowing us to tailor system to our libraries' needs while controlling costs. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our open source ILS is hosted. Communication with our vendor regarding high level issues - such as server issues, response times, and contract issues - are sometimes problematic. We think that perhaps they are over extending themselves. We do most front-line technical support in-house, but issues we cannot address are very capably answered by tech support. They have impleneted new hosting platforms and tools that have improved service. The Evergreen community and development is solid and engaged, although in our opinion, new versions are pushed through too fast while outstanding problems in functionality, interface, or design are neglected. Overall, however, we are far more satisfied with this product and the flexibility open source software provides us than we ever were with our proprietary system. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Some of these answers are inaccurate since we are part of a larger system which handles software issues and implementation for the current open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

No comments at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

This library has no direct contact with vendor/contract company for ILS. Questions of company's service & support are not applicable. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The current ILS system has allowed the Library to provide better services to its patrons and to maintain better control / organization of the Library's collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The issue I have most with the Evergreen System is the difficulty of their reporting tools. At present unless you have access to the data on a SQL basis bibliographic information is hard to come by. Evergreen has come a long way since our implementation in 2012. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We migrated to Evergreen in late November 2016 after being with TLC using LS2. We made this move to join a growing number of public libraries in Manitoba who are now using Evergreen. Also, we wanted to move away from paying license fees in American dollars. Our staff is still learning the new system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The five library systems under [...] Consortium are migrating our own hosted Evergreen servers over to Sequoia which is new hardware with advanced cloud configuration. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Evergreen ILS is solid and through the Evergreen community is much more responsive to the needs of my library system when change or enhancement is needed than our former ILS ever was. Equinox support has become a bit more difficult to engage for the [...] consortium but the Consortium staff are able to make issues resolve in a timely manner. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)


Evergreen -- Independent

top

Our experience tells us that the Evergreen Open Source ILS does not adequately support our mission. We have ample evidence that a commercial ILS is not significantly more expensive than an open source ILS. We have evidence that we cannot (reasonably) do “anything we want” to with an Open Source ILS. We are now looking at the commercial ILS market and determine the best partner to support our mission and walk with us into the future. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

We have been using Evergreen since 2011 and over the past 5 years have experienced continual growth and upgrades to the system. Staff at our consortium (...) are able to develop and implement some of these enhancements on their own. It is especially satisfying not to have to wait for a vendor to implement a change. With the open source system, we have more control over development and functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Evergreen needs a more user friendly way to create reports. Fortunately, there is a large existing pool of report templates. Also, holds behave oddly at times. A patron might have a hold at a branch and the volume ends up going to a hold at the main library first. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Survey does not lend itself well to a library that is already using an open-source product and has no traditional "vendor" support. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Most of these questions are not relevant to our situation, as we self-administer an open source, community developed product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use Evergreen as part of a consortium called [...] Some of my answers may be slightly confused as to "vendor". (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our consortium currently handles all implementation and tech issues with Evergreen, our open source ILS. Our answers were based on the effectiveness of the consortium in handling problems and usability of the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Evergreen -- PTFS Europe

top

We need a web based system to enable mobile circulation and this doesn't seem possible at the moment with Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Horizon

top

We are loving Bibliocommons, their response time to issues is incredibly fast and they resolve issues immediately. So far, staff and patrons find it a huge improvement over the previous discovery layer. And Horizon is still working well for us, though we have created many workarounds and customizations to suit our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have a positive impression of SirsiDynix managment and plans for the support and development of the product(s). I believe they have many challenges in balancing the needs of a large installed user base with developing new solutions. I see this in the on the ground reality of quality of support for new products, timelines for development, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall, we would rate SirsiDynix and Horizon fairly high. We are looking to add new modules from SirsiDynix in the next year to address issues where theHorizon ILS is a little behind the times. For example, we are looking to add Enterprise to give us a more modern discovery interface, and eResource Central to better handle digital materials. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix are developing a suite of Cloud clients but the development is very slow and advanced features required by larger libraries tend to be left-out with the comment that they are coming later. We no longer have any confidence in the development of this BlueCloud suite. Advanced support for the Dynix-sourced products i.e. Horizon and HIP is hard to come by and they feel somewhat abandoned. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

1. A cloud based system is being considered. 2. Lack of adequate funds for a new ILS has been the major reason for not evaluating thoroughly any product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Still haven't seen an ILS that is a must have. Continue to think that ERMS is where our focus should be, with a little circulation module hanging off it for the deadtree versions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We recently had presentation from the ILS vendors of Alma, Sierra and Symphony. The Alma and particularly the Sierra presentations were the most effective. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We haven't had any major support issues over the years. I find that the support staff are helpful, knowledgeable. We have in-house hardware support so do not have to rely on Sirsidynix for that. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not inform on information sorry (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are watching the marketplace and tracking changes/updates. We have better functionality now with our system, but not everything we want or need is currently available. And the costs associated with the current vendor are somewhat burdensome. However, our current budget situation doesn't give us the ability to seriously look at a change. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a new ILS administrator, I find the difficulty of administering Horizon really challenging. The need to know SQL surprises me, and the small amount of free content in the SirsiDynix Support Center also surprises me (many webinars and courses have fees attached). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

we ordered NCIP in May from SirsiDynix and it's still not working. We're very disappointed in this (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Enterprise has been a tad disappointing but I think S/D is working to make improvements. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Item count is for physical materials as of the end of FY16. In addition, [...] has 81,047 eBooks/eAudio as of the end of FY16 (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

While Horizon isn't the greatest system, it does work. We're happier with Sirsi's support than Sirsi's products or their development team. With BiblioCommons, we're very happy with the product but not nearly as happy with their support or their development team. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

With S/D development of their BLUECloud Products and SaaS some of these questions are difficult to answer. I answered based on being a Horizon library but the BC products present many issues that are linked to but separate from Horizon. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

With the wave of mergers in recent years, the field of potential vendors has shrunk. While Horizon is not perfect, we have not seen any other ILS/LSP that offers enough functional difference to make the expensive project of migration worthwhile. We are content to explore SirsiDynix BLUEcloud applications and see what enhancements can be found that way. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have not been on the committee to review systems so I don't have the information you are looking for. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Technical support at SirsiDynix has been fantastic. We are however quite dismayed with the lag in development of the BlueCloud for Horizon libraries. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Meets basic needs, but because of vendor's focus on other products offered, the graphical interface for the K-12 market has not been improved. Customer support is strong, representatives are knowledgeable and know the system well. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We considered migrating to an new ILS this year, and evaluated six different systems; eventually narrowing it down to three (Alma, Symphony, and WMS). Ultimately, we chose to stay with Horizon. SirsiDynix offered the best package and options, as well as the best support; however, due to the ongoing development of the BLUEcloud suite of products, we saw no reason to pay for a migration, in order to get what we'll ultimately get, anyway. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

There are many caveats in my mind with open source product. Our experiences have not been golden. Much is dependent on having access to programmers who can troubleshoot installation or setup problems. We do not have this. Most open source products do not support the end user other than through a "user community" that can (or cannot) be helpful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

I believe there are products offered by SirsiDynix that would handle our electronic collection better but we don't use them yet. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I believe our main problem is on-campus IT support and the limitations they enforce due to (albeit valid) network security concerns. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

last upgrade was very buggy, which has negatively impacted support and satisfaction ratings (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

This is a library system, supporting approx. 40 school libraries, not an individual library. I would like to stress that Horizon has had the best customer support I have ever come across! (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Horizon support team is excellent. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are a special library and Horizon is more than we need. We considered moving away from Horizon earlier this year to a scaled down system, but we decided to stick with Horizon for the immediate future or until a more convenient time for us to make the move. The costs of migration are not in our current budget. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

have moved from internal hosting of server to SaaS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

While satisfied with our current ILS system, budget constraints will require us to look for a less expensive solution (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We enjoy working with the people from Sirsi Dynix. They offer great customer support and robust products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are wondering if Koha will offer the option of linked data for records. Any move to another system would need to have the option. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


HyLib

top

HyLib online cataloging system is implemented with major features of Web 2.0. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Infocentre

top

We will be implementing the Follett Destiny library system in December. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)


Insignia

top

The company is very responsive to tailor the product to our needs. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)


Invenio -- TIND

top

As a small library, Invenio fits our needs. It does not have all the bells and whistles of the next generation library systems, but TIND is very open to making improvements and even over the course of 18 months we have seen improved functionality in the system. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

still a lot of retro-cataloguing to be done... currently only 20,000 items in the system (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


ISIS -- MicroIsis

top

El sistema actual esta echo a medida por la oficina propia de informatica, usando bases ISIS e interface web en PHP, la conexion esta echa por ISIS-Script, al igual que funciona ABCD. De ABCD se tomaron parte de sus escript y fueron modificados por que no pudimos pasarnos a la estructura MARC21 aun. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Kentika

top

Le processus de migration n'est pas terminé. Le catalogue en ligne va être bientôt disponible. La migration a été souvent retardée parfois à cause du fournisseur parfois à cause de troubles techniques et de communications à l'interne de notre institution (...). Kentika doit encore faire ses preuves. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)


KLAS

top

KLAS is a specialized ILS that enables us to serve our patrons. We are very happy with the product and the company. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

KLAS is one of very few systems used for the specialized talking books service from the National Library Service/LC. It is the only circulating collection the Commission has, and all items are digital. Staff tell me that it's better than it used to be, and much better than the other major system available. It still requires some work-arounds and duplication of effort. We've been a test site for several upgrades, so the question on installation schedule doesn't apply. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Koha

top

Koha is a great ILS for our uses as a specialty research library. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- BibLibre

top

Nous avons toujours koha 3.0 et nous envisageons une mise à jour vers 3.22 Le nouveau prestataire choisi : Tamil (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Marché attribué à Biblibre fin 2016. Réinformatisation en cours (date de mise en production en juillet 2017 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)


Koha -- BibliOrion

top

Koha nos ha permitido organizar eficazmente nuestra biblioteca especializada en farmacéutica y obtener cualquier informe que requiramos. BibliOrion nos ha proveído un excelente soporte técnico. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- ByWater Solutions

top

We are very pleased with the customer service from Bywater Solutions, who hosts our Koha ILS. They are very responsive to issues and work hard to alleviate problems that arise. There are some problems with the Koha acquisitions module since some vendors do not provide EDI interface with Koha yet. It is interesting to work with a community of people worldwide who are dedicated to improving the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We migrated to Koha, hosted by Bywater Solutions and have been very please with the change from our previous ILS, Sirsi Dynix Symphony. Implementation and support have been excellent, with follow up on any unresolved issues consistently done. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater Solutions Koha is a great company that is always keeping their product on the cutting edge of ILS technology. Nothing stagnant about Bywater Solutions Koha and what they offer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are very happy with Koha and pleased with Bywater Solutions support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used open source (Koha) since 2009 starting with Liblime as our support vendor. We switched to Bywater Solutions in 2012 and have been very happy with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The transition from Horizon to Bywater has been painful, even three years later. Bywater's KOHA is riddled with bugs and inefficient processes. New versions are released periodically, but most problems need to be funded by subscribers. Bywater is understaffed, and seems poorly managed. Once, they turned off access to our 1,100 student middle school because they thought someone there caused a problem. They did not notify the school or the school librarian. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are curious about FOLIO -- but, as with Kuali OLE before, FOLIO is not ready and there is no network of proven support companies, though eventually EBSCO will be one such support provider, presumably also in Italy. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

48,903 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are a completely open source library and are finding open source options to be very effective and cost efficient. The support we receive from ByWater Solutions is superior to any other company I've ever worked with before. They are truly in a class by themselves. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater Solutions is hosting Koha for us. They have been incredibly responsive to requests for support and customization. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

It's great that we are able to customize the system. The only downside is that we also need to have the time and the knowledge to do so. It's also great that we own our data. For the most part, technical support has been good. But since we do a lot of customization, we've found some bugs in our open source system. So waiting for bug fixes has negatively influenced our support experiences. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Bywater is an excellent company to work with! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater support has been great. Koha itself has been a bit of a challenge. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha is very adaptable to our needs within our library. As a member of a consortium, we are able to readily share our items efficiently, as well as obtain many items which were previously out of reach for our customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have just migrated to Koha, supported by Bywater Solutions. We are therefore still getting used to the system. Ebsco Discovery in particular needs more attention from us. We have access to Novelist K-8 right in our OPAC, AND WE LOVE IT; so do our students. I would make the switch just for that, if it came to it. There have been significant gains in terms of getting an acquisitions module, and in terms of being able to control the cataloging process. We have yet to explore the Authorities module. We'd like to see more thought about the needs of children, but of course we were aware going into this that we were part of a tiny minority within the Koha community. It's a really different experience getting support from a small company like Bywater as opposed to a giant like Follett. Both upsides and downsides to it, of course. In general, I would totally recommend the system and support company. But there is a piece of it that is more labor intensive... so some really strapped smaller libraries with staffing issues may not be able to deal with the demands. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

ByWater has been great to work with. They know the product and their support process, while a little informal at times, is highly effective. After 5 years with ByWater supporting our local Koha server, we moved it to their cloud-based hosting service this year to save on hardware upgrade costs. The transition was very smooth and we are quite pleased. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater does a good job as does [...] , the local subdivision of the [...] which manages our Koha shared catalog. Not perfect, but effective and economical for a small rural library. Saves us thousands of dollars every year. [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We actually used ByWater Solutions to assist us in converting our records to the MARC format and they also did the data migration; which helped a great deal because they can "express" it to the IT Staff. Our Internal IT department supported most of our issues, but they dialogued closely with ByWater Solutions on the IT related issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

KOHA and BYWATER Solutions are a great resource for us... High marks for continuous improvement and great pricing... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We currently use KOHA. We left SirsiDynix because of the dollar amount, the functionality, and support. Bywater Solutions has been a great help. They are open to changes and have worked with us to implement ideas. The OPAC is responsive and used often. We are going to be making some amendments to it this year. Our IT Administrator has been able to amend it to include a slideshow, lists, etc. We've even connected it to our virtual library (www.huntsvillelibrary.ca) via eSolutions and update the slideshow that path. A challenge is that they are a U.S. company and the dollar is flexible. They were open to renegotiation of the contract. Upgrades are always a challenge. I find that the 'notes' provided prior do not include all the changes. After updates staff always say 'hey - where did they go? why is it doing this now?' Occasionally the vendor is surprised (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] has been slow but is undergoing a server upgrade soon which supposedly will make it speedier. The search function is poor. Even when putting in exact title, it may appear on page two or three of search. This is a major drawback. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The cost of hosting and support seems very high to us for the minimal service we need. We are already "saving" due to being part of a group purchase/support deal through a library consortium. If we decided to switch away from Open Source that would be the main reason. Perhaps you should include questions about cost / cost range in your surveys? (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been happy with ByWater Solutions and Koha for over 5 years now. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very happy with Koha and with Bywater. We do regret that we no longer have a "claims returned" process (Verso had a nice one). Nor do holds roll over automatically to the next person waiting. But for 99% of what we do Koha works perfectly and the support from Bywater has been exemplary. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The question "Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?" has an answer with a worse/better range. I chose 5 because they seem to be about the same this year as last. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I haven't been in this library for very long, so I don't know the answer regarding implementation of our current system, and there was not an option to answer N/A. Also, my library goes with what my consortium goes with. So, some of the other questions would have been answered as N/A also. And I don't know what discovery products are, and I don't know if we use an open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The only difficulty I've had with Koha is doing inventory. I wish there was an easier way to go about it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

the ils needs better Spanish reading interface and I would like greater discovery of e-resources and relevant events (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ByWater Solutions' support is easy to use and truly supportive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been with our current system for just over a year. There are certain things that don't work quite the way we would like, but part of that is because we are using it as a consortium and have different policies from library to library. The rest is minor and fixes are being worked on. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of a Consortium and do not contract for our ILS on our own. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I just became the librarian here in September so I do not know the answer to some of these questions, I am giving you my best guess! (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a small library still being developed. In June of 2016 the library used an Excel spreadsheet. We chose an open source ILS because of cost and functionality. ByWater Solutions has been cognizant of our progress and worked with me at our pace. I am a solo librarian, some projects take me longer to complete. They have been amazing, patient and helpful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The only reason we're considering another ILS is because we'd like to join our statewide consortium - we love Koha! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater Solutions is not an ILS vendor but rather is a service company for Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- Catalyst

top

The vendors are excellent and the product is great for users - it is not particularly intuitive or streamlined at the back-end, ie creating custom reports, and further training is prohibitively expensive. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I haven't done this survey before so I'm not sure what previous rating were like. I'm hoping that next year we can tackle some of the problems such which have surfaced as the result of new staff (1 person, we're a two person library) starting to use the system (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)


Koha -- Equinox Software

top

We use KOHA with Equinox as our host/support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Support vendor and host is Equinox Software (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Koha -- Independent

top

Since we are working with Koha as an open source ILS, a few of the questions in this survey are difficult to answer correctly since they don't apply to our situation. We don't have a vendor. Working with our Koha implementation, we bought some service from Biblibre and were happy with that. Since we have only used Koha for a couple of months, it is still early to say how satisfied we are. We are currently very proud of having gone open source and feel excited about taking on a bigger responsibility ourselves. On the other hand, there are som issues from the implementation that we haven't fixed yet. Also, Koha is just a small part of our approach to library systems. Koha, at Stockholm university, handles _only_ circulation. It is part of a bigger infrastructure. We use a self developed system for ILL, stack retrievals and other operations regarding the physical collections. (Whatever the "library collections" mean nowadays..) We use the national union catalog for cataloging and as "opac" (such an archaic concept). Currently using SFX as link resolver and looking at implementing CORAL for ERM things. A locally developed integration layer handles communication between the components of our "decoupled" library system, other university systems etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

KOHA is a good product, but our local IT person is the one that is in charge of it. Last spring it was working fine. But some updates were installed and now it seems when one problem is fixed another problem develops. It has been rather frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

For an FOSS, Koha is the best for us as far as features, functionality, sustainability, stability of the system, and general altruistic value of the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha es el mejor SIGB (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We used Equinox as a support vendor last year and were not happy with them. We have contracted with our former systems librarian to provide support and we are very happy with him. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The questions aren't entirely pertinent to the open source model. Some users of open source software have a commercial vendor to provide installation and support; we don't. In our case support and upgrades are provided by the community, and quite adequately. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Library is already running Open Source Koha ILS. Some of the questions are because of this somewhat not applicable. All ILS support of Koha are managed inhouse from the University IT Service and Library IT Specialists. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS support is managed by the library itself (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

La biblioteca está muy conforme con el Koha, el tema que cualquier cambio mayor o menor para hacer, no se tiene el apoyo informático suficiente. Soy partidaria del Open Access pero es difícil conseguir buen soporte informático para estos paquetes. Me gustaría implementar el repositorio institucional con DSpace y poder combinar el Koha con VuFind para mejorar la herramienta de descubrimiento. Sé que se está trabajando al respecto porque en la lista del Koha se ha comentado, pero aún no ha habido aviso de su implementación. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We use Koha and this was also being used for our Institutional repository, albeit not very successfully. We're using a mendeley group at the moment for this, but are trying to get internal support for a dedicated institutional repository system, eg DSpace, Omeka, etc. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As we are using KOHA ILS which is an Open Source System, we manage this on our own. From system upgrading, maintenance all are done by our own IT team. We are also using Drupal CMS for our library system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Adoptamos KOHA, no tiene un soporte de una empresa, sino que cooperativamente se van resolviendo cuestiones ligadas a su desarrollo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Hasta este momento nuestro SIGB, esta ofreciendo el servicio deseado. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

KOHA ILS was implemented at the Library of the [...] , by our own IT staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Migrated from Millennium to KOHA (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Questions were not very applicable to libraries that already use an open source ILS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Love Koha. Very happy with the open source community! (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We didn't go through a third party to install Koha--we downloaded it from koha-community.org and did all the work ourselves. Support has been provided by other Koha users. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We implemented and support Koha ourselves. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The number above is the total physical items in the library's collection April 1, 2016 - not downloadable items available through Download Library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I had KOHA open source installed by my free lance IT guy in 2011. He does the system and equipment upgrades and handles any issues I might have with the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha es un sistema muy flexible y adaptable. ha sido de gran ayuda en nuestra biblioteca. La empresa BibliOrion en México nos ha auxiliado en la resolución de nuestras dudas. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

KOHA has proved very productive to satisfy our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I answered as independent Koha Library. Some municipalities in Finland fouded a Limited company owned by municipalities. It is named (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are using Koha an open source ILS that is managed jointly by all the regional libraries. The end game with Koha is that it could be implemented nationally one day that all libraries would have the same ILS. The ILS is still being worked on which means that a few functionalities are missing and there are plenty of bugs in the system. Many of our library workers wish that the system could have been more complete before we migrated to it but the reason it was implemented now was dependent on the rising costs from the previous system. However, the ILS is improving slowly but surely and we are starting to get the benefits from having a regionally integrated system. The biggest problem was not because of the system itself even though it is incomplete but the time it took for the librarians to get used to it. Even if the system has been a strain on our library staff, the ILS from the perspective of our patrons it has been better than the previous system. The current open source system has a better web interface than the previous one and as such managing their library information has been never been as easy as now. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We have been using Open Source ILS Koha since October 2011. We have implemented completely in-house and did not take any assistance from any Vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are currently in a transition period where Koha is used as our traditional ILS and Intota is used to manage many aspects of our e-resources. We implemented Koha independently so many of these questions are N/A. We considered and had positive interactions with Bywater but we ultimately implemented Koha ourselves as an interim solution. We had originally planned to switch to Intota v2 but now plan to switch to Alma with the demise of the Intota line post-merger. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have already an open source ILS (KOHA) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

KOHA is an open ILS which has a great potential for the library. The main challege is support to make it fully functional to it full potential. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Some comments: We are managing ILS by ourselves and also supporting other libraries in Georgia to implement KOHA. We consider discovery products, but no clear decision at this moment. Problems with managing e-resources: currently KOHA has tool to import MARC records, but has no direct solution for deleting records via the same tool. Which is inconvenient when we work with databases (e.g. e-books) where records are added/deleted frequently. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a stand-alone library using open source KOHA. We are very satisfied with support from individuals involved. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha was implemented at ESCAP Library by a hired consultant in 2014. Unfortunately, the work was not truly completed. No real customization was done and verification of data migration was not done and significant parts of our collection never migrated succesfully. Furthermore, we have been without a systems librarian or assistant since April 2015, so no upgrades or maintenance have been conducted and capacity is not available to investigate customizaiton or migration issues. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)


Koha -- Informatics India

top

Koha is emerging as the most preferred ILS, especially in India as there have been significant customisation efforts by Koha Community and also major Service Vendors like Informatics India Ltd. satisfying the functional needs of Indian Libraries including Academic (Large and Small), Special and Public. Informatics India, has set up separate Library Technology Division to support the libraries in training, installation and local adaptation of Koha and its integration with various components of Digital Library Systems used in India. . The company provides cloud based hosting ervice to Libraries for ILS and Institutional Repositories (IR) making IT infrastructure management affordable to Indian libraries. This company also organises National Koha Conclave as an annual event in February to bring Koha community on a common platform for developmental exchanges. Apart from this a number of Seminars on Koha are being organised in India. More than 500 libraries are currently using Koha in India. The Supreme Court of India has instructed all High Courts to implement Koha in their libraries. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research is using Koha for its network of 50 research libraries and has its Union catalog(KnowGate) Union Catalogue for all its Institutions on Koha platform. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), another research cluster has adapted Koha for its 100+ libraries. Most of the universities in Karnataka State have already implemented Koha and others planning to go for it soon. While most of the libraries in India plan to switchover to Koha retrospective cataloging and catalog record migration remains the main challenge as many of the legacy ILS systems and their OPAC records are not MARC compliant. Informatics has been successful in addressing these challenges. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- Interleaf Technology

top

I have used a few different library programs. I find Koha easy to manage. It serves our library well in terms of circulation and reports. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha -- Kobli

top

Nuestra biblioteca trabaja desde hace 4 años aproximadamente con un SIGB en código abierto, el cual ha sido muy satisfactorio en toda la gestión de nuestros recursos impresos y electrónicos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- LibLime

top

I'm generally satisfied, but not at all wowed, by what we have and by anything we've looked at. Seems to me like all the programmers have got us doing the same things as the other guys, blah, blah, blah. Seems like we are waiting for the "next big thing" but nobody can picture what that is in order to create it. I mean, the leap from the card catalog to MARC records and OPACs was exciting! Right? What's the next BIG leap forward? When will it happen? How will it change our library lives? THAT is something that would finally have a "wow factor." And that's what I'm hoping for, waiting for, looking for. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Basic functionality is still lacking (cannot search by subtitles), cannot printed slips for renewal sessions, report interface is a separate interface that cannot export cleanly into Excel, cannot link from ILS to web based email etc. KOHA by PTFS has not delivered all that was required at go live which was 4 years ago. KOHA by PTFS is now attempting to merge their academic code with public library code "sometime" this fall. Would leave if we could. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

There are small glitches such as the cursor not staying with the checkin field, and the new method of pulling reports is cumbersome, AND about 20% of the time the system will report, upon checkin "not checked out" when it has been, making me worry that the count for materials checkin will not be accurate at the end of the reporting period. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Shared system - [... ] consortium. Plusses: consortium ILL, consortium tech support, title integration. Minus: limited local administration; issues that we feel needing change back-burner. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Software is no longer used in the library functions, many historic books have been dispersed. Koha was implemented some time ago, with opensource code, no support from any vendor, but was discontinued a few years ago.[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small)

We belong to the [..] consortium and have not been particularly active in development of the product due to our staff size limitations. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha -- Prosentient Systems

top

Excellent service over several years from the support company that manages our ILS. Only a few irritants with Koha, otherwise it performs exceptionally well. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Koha -- PTFS Europe

top

I have filled int his survey. Our Systems Support Librarian will review the database entry. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We were one of the first libraries to use Koha through our present company and now lots of much bigger company and university libraries are using it. We have felt this year that maybe our needs aren't being taken into consideration as much as before. Also I think the company will need to engage more staff in order to develop new products and ensure when they are released that they work properly. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha -- Young Innovations

top

Our KOHA system is very effective for us at the present time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Kuali OLE

top

Current system is community developed and open source, so not acquired through vendor and doesnot have typical customer support. Currently not being developed any further as current users are expected to migrate to FOLIO in 2-3 years (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)


L4U

top

We are all volunteers and most of us have little or no computer experience. L4U is easy to use and understand for beginners. It does, however, lack in flexibility (i.e. customization.) (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Libero

top

Support is excellent and timely. Great to deal with a vendor whose development takes place in Australia. The Libero User Group is also a great source of support and experience on which we can draw. I feel that I can actually contribute to the future development of the software and that user suggestions are highly valued. I think that the software stands out particularly for the level of parameterisation, security and control available to site administrators. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Libero is a stable and adequate product. However, I don't believe it has a very strategic or long term view. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I've only been here a year so can't really comment on improvement/lack thereof. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


Liberty

top

Softlink Liberty is an excellent product. It provides us with virtually 100% uptime of our online catalog, which is accessed worldwide in our company. Customer service is excellent. Features and functionality are outstanding. Our catalog contains a wide range of content, from print and electronic to ephemera and maps. Highly recommended. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Liberty3

top

Softlink's Liberty system is more 'customisable' than many others. Good if you have a technician to tweak it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)


Libra.se

top

Approx. number of items are items included in our ILS. Ebooks are included, but not Electronic journals that are not in our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Overall we are pleased with our current automation system but the vendor has stopped updating it. For that reason we are considering other options. It's getting old. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Library.Solution

top

Vendor works well with us to resolve problems or respond to requests (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very satisfied with TLC, which works well with our small collection size. Thanks to the input of my former colleague, TLC improved the system's functionality to assist us in better cataloguing the collection. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

In the next year we plan to transition from hosting TLC's LS2Staff ourselves to having TLC host the ILS for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The two open source ILS options reflect possible consortium participation. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I attempted to lead a switch away from TLC but the County at large voted to not change despite a grant being won for costs. People here just don't want to re-learn even if they are being given free access to a better system with lower costs and better service. Fear of change and resistance to training, fear of data loss etc. Really sad. The ability to share resources throughout the county is too valuable to give up by moving my library to it's own system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

I've only been director here for 3 months and do not know the answer to most of these questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are very impressed with TLC. It has many reports available and is easy to use. It has much improved interfaces. 3rd party integration could be better. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We recently had a technical problem that took several weeks to be remedied. We eventually got someone from TLC who was more technologically trained and who followed up with phone calls. We don't have IT personnel on staff so it can be frustrating. It's also why we would not be likely to go with open sources - no trained staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

A very reliable company that's in touch with its customers. Particularly valuable to those libraries who cannot afford a systems librarian. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Have aquired EBSCO Discovery Services but have not implemented it live on our site to date. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been very happy with TLC since we migrated to them in 2008. We are especially looking forward to their new cataloging module. We like Ebsco's Discovery, but found setup to be a bit complicated. But the support team at Ebsco helped us figure it out! (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The current ILS is obviously more appropriate for public library implementation rather than academic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our IT department and Technical Services has discussed looking at some alternate ILS systems but as yet, we have not researched any products seriously. We have had our current ILS since we first automated in 1997. It seems that the [...] has grown along with Library Corporation over the years and their upgrades and implementations have sufficiently occurred with our need. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am happy with TLC at time time and will not be making any changes. Thanks. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am no automated (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

TLC is great. We are considering going to Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Library Corporation continues to offer a high level of service and support that is responsive and timely. Very happy with our relationship with this vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The customer service of TLC is top-notch. All TLC employees are immersed in serving their clients' needs. TLC primarily serves public and school libraries, so much of their development focus is for these institutions; that said, they are responsive to the needs of academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


LibraryWorld

top

The big plus with Library World is the low cost. Given the cost, it meets our needs remarkably well. There are features available from more expensive systems that would be nice, but are not essential. Some reports can be cumbersome to run. Public search defaults could be easily improved. Labeling of overdue emails could be better so patrons recognize them and don't delete. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Library World is very affordable for our tiny library. It does the job effectively and efficiently on a daily basis. However, it has NO intelligence for misspellings, giving reports, or adding a new record with multiple options. Switching between screens takes thoughtful steps. For reporting, I have to do a lot of manual copying and pasting to get what I need for Annual reports. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We stopped using Library World's customer service almost immediately. Questions were answered poorly, if at all, and when I asked about difficulties with importing, I was told that "other libraries were able to do it," and that was the end of the conversation. I eventually hand-entered each item. While that may have been necessary anyway, it took many hours. I am the only employee, so much was done on evenings and weekends without pay. We were unable (and still are unable) to consider another system sue to time and budget issues. I left the customer service question at a 5 because I haven't called them for so long. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

have signed contract for new ILS in 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

It's a great ILS for smaller libraries. It's a SaaS system, and we've never had an unplanned outage. The circulation & cataloging modules work well. The serials...not so much. There isn't an acquisitions module, nor one for e-resources. However, it fits our collection & the users seem to like the interface. Overall, it's very easy to use & maintain. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


LIBSYS

top

LIBSYS software is good but it is not as good as VTLS and many bugs we are finding while using LIBSYS after 4 years now LIBSYS people are saying our software has upgraded to new version and for that you have to pay some cost which is difficult for us to go for upgrade version because our authorities will not support in this regard. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


LibSys - India

top

Open source software Koha is one of the best ILMS solution which needs to be implemented because the features and other technical things are most strong than others when we compare it with other commercial solutions in Indian context. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)


LIMEDIO

top

We removed very many books (1/3 of the whole holdings), due to the closure of branch in 2015.) So, approx number of items have been declined rapidly in a few year, and is not a sort of typo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Locally developed

top

We just have in-house software that provides copy cataloging assistance and an online search engine to our book catalog. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small)

El SIGB actual de nuestra biblioteca es un sistema propietario desarrollado y soportado por la Universidad [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

It all sound great, but our budget is so low we can't even afford a decent computer. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Mandarin M3

top

We will be switching November 14 from M3 to OPALS. The decline in support along with little or no progress in the client-server software (efforts all seem to have been aimed at the new M5 product which lacks functionality found in M3) led us to make the change. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We would like to have WSM, but it is too expensive. Even through IPAL consortium we still cannot afford it. For open source ILS we don't have enough qualified IT personnel. We feel as if we are stuck with Mandarin, which is not a university library software. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Mandarin has been very good to us and I would feel guilty leaving them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are joining the [...] consortium with a go-live date of 2/27/17. We will use the shared Koha ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Concerned about Mandarin Library Automation’s ability to support ongoing development, to adapt to changing environments, and accommodate future trends. While there is an opportunity for us to upgrade to M5, to date this newer environment still lacks functionality, and places a heavy reliance on existing M3 modules for a number of core functions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Our ILS was designed for a school library, but in fact we're a public library for the entire community. We don't have it within our budget or available resources to go through the process of changing over the system. The main thing I don't like about Follett is that its design and catalog focus is juvenile. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)


Mandarin Oasis

top

We are satisfied with our system and do not expect to change until we merge data with [...] . (Customer support has always been very good, so "getting better" is relative.) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS support issues are handled by our IT officer who is very familiar with Mandarin and does all the troubleshooting (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We don't catalogue any e-resources so I didn't know how to answer this question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Millennium

top

[...] will likely have a statewide ILS purchase approved by the legislature in the next year or two, at which point we would definitely be migrating to whatever vendor is selected by the state. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Under library profiles it might be useful to many libraries to know what other libraries are using for vendors for Proxy server and also SSL Certificate issuer. For example, we use Innovative WAM proxy still (but we're considering switching to OCLC's EZProxy and for SSL Certs we use GeoTrust. And, Thanks! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Millennium product is so expensive that we have only been able to implement the most basic modules - we never used their Acqusitions or Periodicals product because of cost. For the same cos as what we currently payt, Alma will allow us this functionality, as well as having an electronic resources management system. Also, III customer service is not as good as it used to be. It has improved a bit since the last year, but response time on our issues can now take weeks where before it took days. Another reason we are happy to let this sytem go. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I think Millennium and Sierra are excellent automation systems, the customer support is fine. We acquired other products by Innovative, such as Encore, Content Pro, but they are not very good. The functionalities are not complete and we are not satisfied about the customer support of these two products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Frustrations regarding Innovative's technical support and pricing model compelled us to look for another ILS this year. We are in the final stages of choosing another vendor. Innovative continues to assure Millennium customers that the system will be supported for the forseeable future, however, the responses to our problem tickets and information gathered from product development webinars communicates otherwise. Marketing is geared toward getting Millennium customers on the latest release of Sierra and new feature development bypasses Millennium in favor of Sierra. Under the hood, much of Sierra's architecture seems ported directly from Millennium. Sierra still relies on Java applications (or character based client for some features), a nascent knowledge base and partially developed APIs, whereas competing systems offer a true multitenant SaaS architecture, with 100% web based access, exception based workflows, and a fully integrated (and well tested) knowledge base. Innovative has made strides toward openness in product development - they are thinking about doing away with the ineffective user group ballot and hosting quarterly product webinars now. But their business model still asks subscribers to pay for additional modules to accomplish something new, whereas competing vendors offer more built-in functionality. Sales and frontline call support is still an area of weakness due to heavy turnover. However, once your support call is escalated, second level technicians usually have the expertise to resolve problems promptly. Communication between Innovative and campus IT was a problem for us during a recent system migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Alma has become up in our ranking of possible new ILS / LSP since Ex Libris was acquired by Proquest. We use a lot of the 360 stuff (Serials Solutions stuff) and Summon. We're very happy with Proquest in general. When we heard about their plans to keep Summon, even though discontinuing Intota development, we were relieved. That PQ/EL will "never" sunset a product, rather let them converge gradually, sounds like a good strategy to us. At least beneficial to us. We hope that this is going to be yet another positive experience with Serials Solutions/Proquest/Ex Libris. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Customer service with Innovative has been erratic over the last year. At this point in time, however, it seems to be improving. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are looking most seriously at Sierra wanting to avoid the change management disruption and costs associated with a larger change. We believe an 'upgrade' to Sierra will give us a few years for the environment to mature. We are watching Folio and Ebsco closely. We will review our Discovery system next year since Summon is now not performing as well as in the past. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

Muchas gracias (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The [...] University Libraries will be moving to Sierra within the next year. I believe they are looking to replace Endeca, but have not heard what tools they are looking to use. The [...] does play a part in the evaluation and selection of tools. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are fairly dissatisfied with the responsiveness and quality of service provided by III, especially considering the significant cost involved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] Library is just embarking on a complete ILS migration from the Millennium (Innovative) to Alma and Primo (Ex Libris). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are migrating to Sierra and Implementing Encore Duet as members of [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

With an increasingly tight budget, and fewer staff members, vendor customer support is imperative. Submitting a help ticket for tech support is inconvenient, and often not helpful, especially when our staff members don't speak the same tech language. When we don't have the technology expertise on our side, exchanging emails, or spending hours looking at FAQs and /or listserve posts that never quite address our problem adds to the frustration of finding a solution. I once finally got to speak on the phone to a customer service support person, and when we were finished, she told me that I should look at the listserve posts for help. That made me not want to call again. Open source, therefore, would not be helpful unless we could hire someone with technical expertise, coding ability, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

While not quite actively investigating a new ILS yet it is on the horizon for us in the next 2-3 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We're currently using Millennium III, but migrating to OCLC WorldShare. At this time we have not implemented the WorldShare ILS, so my responses are about III only. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

III's support documentation is a disaster with javascript errors everywhere. They're overpriced and have not provided a level of customer support that we find appropriate for the amount of money we're spending/ and our long history with their company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

III support is the worst I've seen. We have issues never resolved from months ago. Very unhappy. We are happily looking forward to migrating to Alama/Primo. Go live planned for June 1, 2017. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

We plan to migrate to a new system in Q3 2017, and we are looking at all of the available options, including open source. If we choose open source, we will almost certainly implement with a migration/support/management partner -- on our list currently are LibLime/PTFS, ByWater Solutions and Equinox. Our biggest three considerations: - Strong data retention and access for reporting and analytics - Web-based circulation module for community outreach - Has a development path that includes features that fully integrate RDA/linked data (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Migrating from Millennium to Sierra this year within the Innovative family (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

the [...] Libraries will be migrating to SIERRA- the new platform of Millennium, in a couple of months, then our customer support will be through an agent/partner of Innovative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Since we're using Innovative's Millennium (which is slowly being sunsetted), we're looking at getting a new ILS in the next year, but are still researching possible vendors at this point. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

we are working to upgrade to Sierra, not sure what that counts as we don't consider it a new ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We're really only migrating to Sierra because Millennium is no longer on III's development roadmap and we've already paid for the migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The College collection is managed by [...] on behalf of the College, and is currently part of the [...] . The University has made the decision to leave the consortium and the new system should be in place in June 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Millennium System seems very old fashioned and unresponsive. The offered upgrade (Sierra) does not appear significantly different from an operational point of view, which is why we are in the process of changing system. In particular we find reporting through the system unwieldy and the need to move in and out of different modules to carry out parts of a task is not efficient. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Overall the industry seems to lag behind other software developers, perhaps due in part to the lack of competition. Neither of the systems currently available for academic libraries (Sierra and Alma) represent value for money or appear to respond effectively to the needs of modern libraries. I am hopeful of more open source developments, and we are watching FOLIO with some interest. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)

Number of items referred to our print / physical collection only. The e-collection comprises mainly 377,331 e-books and 41,164 e-journals (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We want a FRBRized interface. Also, easy tracking and batchloading of multiple sources of ebooks with different license provisions is needed. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

III has become really sloppy this year: could not get passwords re-set (to access the knowledgebase, for over 6 weeks), despite escalation. Technical tickets are opened without further follow up. III's sales presentations of Sierra leave a lot to be desired. They are far behind Ex Libris and have nothing to update their old database structure as developed for their older ILSes. It's the same structure from the early 1980s. Disappointing. Ex Libris, for our Discovery layer has not been great either. The hosted environment has not been stable. We lost October and November, with getting full exposure of our records to our users b/c of major indexing problems. We have been trying to get real-time availability to work for about a year. It had been working (after our first year of implementation), but it is now not working again consistently, for the past year (we're in our third year of having implemented this discovery layer. Reliable and robust cloud-hosting with multi-tenant solutions, is just not there, yet, for these companies. They are saying the buzz words and terms when selling the product, but are falling short on delivery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

The Millennium is a good product before but not now. We need more free access our database. The next produce Sierra have lot of problem and less api to use. The Sierra isn't solve millennium problem and even create more. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Many of these answers are influenced by the current process of migrating to Sierra from Millennium. It has been a mess. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Moving off III after almost 25 years. No customer service anymore and it's expensive. No innovation any more! Sad. The open source products that we looked at didn't seem to address electronic resources, which is most of our business these days. We were down to WMS and Alma. And WMS has the worst discovery interface and the sales and demo staff weren't that hot either. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Na (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative Interfaces customer service has really worsened through the years. We have been a customer with them for about 20 years, and when we first began, they were good and helpful. As the years went by, their customer service stands at almost 0 with us. We purchased the their discovery system and it never worked correctly and Innovative simply gave up trying to correct it to get it to work. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

INNOPAC Innovative is a robust system and very stable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We will certainly be migrating in 2017 or 2018. Millennium is dated, though we didn't realize how much until we started conducting site visits and talking to vendors about more up-to-date products. Symphony is our most likely choice as migration to Blue Cloud is going to be such an easy step. We are interested in going to a non-hosted platform with some more "bells and whistles". We did not consider Sierra as we have been so unhappy with the customer service offered by Innovative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Customer service and hardware and software issues have been very bad for the last two years, and the vendor was totally unresponsive. However, the vendor has finally taken note of our dissatisfaction and sent a VP to meet with us and discuss the issues (hardware/software/customer service/help desk and support personnel) so the issues are now being addressed. They have put on watchdog monitors for the issues as well as putting a team on the issues,we are experiencing and while to date we have no in depth answers, we have a phone call with them tomorrow, which I hope will provide some answers and solutions. If there are no solutions/answers tomorrow, my ratings would probably drop further than they are already are above. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are currently under contract with OCLC's WMS system (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Cost! one of the issue! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Choices for a research library are very small. Our consortium has larger pulled away from Innovative and has moved to Ex Libris, which may be a strong point in its favor as we search. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are in the middle of implementation of Sierra, with a Consortium group catalog. We are also implementing EDS discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Migration to Carl.X (shared ILS with [...]) will happen 2017Q2 (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)


Minisis

top

This company is friendly, helpful, and provides good customer service. They listen to suggestions and explain things well. Minisis Inc. is a Canadian company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


NewGenLib

top

Verus Solutions developers of NewGenLib, working hard to improve the functionalities of the ILS. Shortly they release new version with some more functionalities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


None

top

We are a small, un-automated library open ten hours per week year-round, and have one paid employee. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

We do not have an automated system so questions were a moot point. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)

We have no automation system or discovery interface, so unfortunately, there is little useful information that I can provide (Library type: Other; collection size: very small)


none

top

We use Ebsco Discovery service instead of an ILS system. All students have access to it and most of our resources are listed on it. It serves as our catalog. The [...] is a distance learning institution and all of our courses are online. All resources are available online to students. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small)


None

top

We are a library that serves a community of about 500 patrons and are open 2 hours daily Monday through Saturday (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

No longer using a traditional ILS. We're an online-only library, so the discovery service has essentially replaced our ILS. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small)


none

top

We don't have an ILS in place, everything we do is manual. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)


None

top

[...] We do not have a public or professional collection and do not have an ILS. (Library type: State; collection size: very small)

[...] Public Library is not automated (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

We are not automated. We are a small, rural library that serve 557 patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)

We are not yet automated but would like to be if the money for that ever becomes available. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)


OLIB

top

The current ILS have some drawbacks when it comes to the OPAC and reporting. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Oliver

top

We changed this year from an open source product which we had used for 5 years to our current Oliver system. The speed at which this new service works has exceeded our expectations. we are very happy with the new product and support. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


OPALS

top

I directly purchase and handle my own automation from the vendor, at an $11,000 annual savings rather than go through BOCES for this. I am appalled at the prices BOCES is charging school districts. They are supposed to be a Cooperative Consortium that is cheaper, but that is not the case... (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Media Flex has provided prompt customer service when OPALS has experienced server problems or other technical issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer service is quite good. The folks are very helpful and fast. The system has its quirks, but it meets our needs well. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

OPALS is an easy, affordable, reliable, and powerful library automation system. Bibliofiche provides fast and knowledgeable tech support. This company listens to their clients for suggestions for improvements. I would strongly suggest this company to any library looking for an automation system. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have been very satisfied with our vendor, MediaFlex. In my opinion, they provide the best ILS for the most affordable price in the market. I especially like their special pricing for very small libraries that serve schools and faith-based organizations. Customer service and willingness to listen to their customers and implement suggestions is outstanding. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been extremely impressed and pleased with the customer support for OPALS. The flexibility of the system is amazing. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Love the functionality (and price) of OPALS, however, the interface is a little dated and not the most streamlined. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Excellent support and updates. They listen and deliver. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We were delighted when the OPALS programmers developed a self-checkout module this year. We had a few bumps getting it going, but the tech support for OPALS was fabulous. It is working spectacularly in our library now! (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I love my OPALS system! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We continue to be very pleased with OPALS and with the service provided by Bibliofiche. Ongoing upgrades continue to add to the functionality of what was already a great system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our sixth year and still very satisified! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This is our eighth year using OPALS. Their program updates take care of our evolving digital resources and databases while still managing and promoting print resources efficiently. Support is superlative and the annual service fee is sustainable. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I could not be more please, nor recommend more highly OPALS, hosted by Mediaflex. The product and responsiveness of the Mediaflex support staff are outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

As this program has grown and become more widely used, customer support has weakened. Company is less responsive than in the past. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

I always have nothing but good things to say about OPALS and the customer service. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

More districts in our area followed our migration to OPALS this year! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Union catalog for [...] region is part of a larger [...] regional catalog comprising 4 school library systems of [...]. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

To date I have not needed to contact customer support. I find OPALS intuitively easy to use. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is always top-notch. They are very responsive to our school library system's needs, and always try to work with us to give us the best experience possible. Some of their newest features are strokes of genius (especially the ability to pull up a class list for checkouts). OPALS is always striving to improve their product for their users, and we school librarians are forever grateful for that. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is an excellent ILS with a very responsive support team. The ILS is constantly improving to better meet the needs of the libraries that use it. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been very pleased with the OPALS library automation system. The customer service is outstanding and the pricing is very competitive. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is such a user-friendly system to work with in our library. We just automated our elementary schools and a new librarian came in and was able to pick it up very quickly. Their response time is incredible and they are very customer oriented. If you want something to happen, there is a good chance you will get it! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Over the past year, our provider has migrated to faster servers, which has improved our response time. They have also implemented a nifty global editing feature that allows us to do much of our own database clean-up. The support personnel are the best this librarian has ever worked with. Acquisitions functions would be very welcome. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

OPALS is a great product and MediaFlex / MediaSource is a great vendor. I recommend them all the time for library looking for an ILS. They are by far the most responsive vendor of any type I have ever worked with. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is extremely robust and with the addition of other interactive modules and updates throughout the year it is difficult to imagine how it could get any better, and yet it keeps growing to cover more than just basic library management. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

This is my last year participating in this survey as I plan to retire in 2017. Our district migrated to OPALS in 2008 and we have been very well served by the system and by OPALS technical support staff. They update the system several times a year with changes we suggest, and necessitated by the evolving media formats with which we work. Their single login, authentication, database integration is heavily used by our teachers and students. I am leaving my successor a well-manged library due in large part to this extraordinary technology. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Great customer service, Excellent End User Seminars (including user initiated enhancements) (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I could not be more please, nor recommend more highly OPALS, hosted by Mediaflex. The product and responsiveness of the Mediaflex support staff are outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

OPALS is a dream come true after seven years of using our previous system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are especially pleased with the "Pathfinder" feature, which has allowed us to quickly create topical bibliographies which include print, nonprint, online and stored PDF documents. The software's flexible "Home Page" design features allow customization by non-programmers--an essential feature for a small library with limited staff/volunteer time available. No change during last year in the consistently high quality and rapid customer support service. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Truly, it is a great program! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our region did a fifth year library technology review. Other systems were revisited and assessed. Following this process, a vote was taken and 94% voted to remain with OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This is our first year using OPALS. Our business college library has been satisfied with OPALS as well as the courteous support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The OPALS support team provides a great open source system and outstanding service at a sustainable cost. Supportive to us for each of the past 8 years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been very happy with OPALS service over the years! We look forward to a long and successful relationship in years to come! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This particular open source ILS has meet and continue to meet my library management needs. I like the ease of use, the seamless integration of MARC records, circulation records, and other administrative reports and tools. The customer support snd service is the best! Whenever I have a problem, issue, or even a suggestion, I would get an email within 24 hours. OPALS has a great team and I enjoy working with them! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Re: Tech support improvement question: This is our first year's experience so we cannot compare. Service since the beginning of this year has been excellent though, so good that we have recommended the system and company to other libraries in our region. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used OPALS for quite a few years. The system and the company servicing it have provided continuous, reliable support and updates. We do not yet manage digital archives, which is why we did not provide a rating for that survey question. We understand the technology to do so is there when we decide to do so. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

System updates two - three times a year. Updates are community driven. We wanted a Sip2 based self service application not requiring the purchase of expensive terminals to implement it. We use what they developed with a scanner, an old desktop and monitor and existing barcodes. (no extra cost!). Students love it, and we have more time to teach real research skills. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am retiring this year. my colleagues and I experienced a very smooth transition to OPALS. The migration from a large, expensive, cumbersome system was painless. Their development of digital resources management technology, updates and support these past 5 years has been outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We love the Bibliofiche guys! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are struggling with the fact that students don't need to use a book library to get access to materials that they need. Much of what they need for class is available on line or as e-books. We don't have many books checked out in a year. It is mainly textbooks which get checked out. Others use the libraries in their home towns or have access to through their church libraries. We maintain a library because of state requirements. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I moved to OPALS in summer 2016, after almost 20 years on our previous system which was Heritage. Both myself and library users have been incredibly happy with the decision to make the move. The system is incredibly intuitive and I have been able to work out most things for myself. When I have needed some help, the support team and OPALS have been incredibly helpful. They always respond quickly (which is impressive given that we are in different time zones) and often provide more than the answer to my question. There are are few things that I would like the system to do, but with the frequent updates made by OPALS, these functions are likely to be possible in the future. The strengths in other areas of the system, far outweigh the need for a couple of functions that are lacking which aren't 100% necessary anyway. OPALS is a wonderful system and gives us something that isn't 100 miles away from the major systems used by the large institutions that we could never even dream of affording. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very pleased with OPALS. At a price point which was a fraction of what we were using, it fills the needs of a small health sciences library quite well. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am very pleased with OPALS. It is user friendly and has everything we could possibly need to support our staff and students. Customer support has been awesome. The only thing I could use would be a User Manual published by the company as I am a "browser" and love a good index. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This library is in [...], so they do not use ILL One Mission Society had a number of libraries using OPALS. and we are very happy with them and will continue. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Very responsive to user requests, especially with library website content enrichment tools and implementation of RDA elements. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

OPALS is very easy to use. I love it!! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

*Our collection comprises 28,297 print titles and 23,056 non-print which includes all streaming video records in Classroom Video on Demand database. Our experience with OPALS has been very good, with service highly rated for responsiveness to requests and fulfillment of inquiries. For school libraries OPALS is a quality product that is cost effective as well. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have implemented open source ILS. Company service remains outstanding, we are very happy with OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Using this system since 2007. The multiple annual updates have kept pace with changing resource formats and technology infrastructure. System transforms itself so we do not need to shop or pay for a "new" one. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS and service are outstanding. Not sure how to answer the survey question : "Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?" as support is superlative already. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been very happy with using OPALS this past year. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have also subscribed this year to OCLC's access to import MARC records therefrom, decided not to subscribe to their more expensive discovery interface at this point. Have been very pleased with OCLC access. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The system manages print resources very well. Integrates information database & digital resources authentication and access & includes portal utilities & a discovery interface. Whenever we think we need third party applications, the community advisory board evaluates the need, usually approves an update and developers make it happen. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Many years of great service and system improvement. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our OPALS ILS has been great and MediaFlex has been very responsive to our needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Open Marco Polo

top

La decisión del nuevo sistema emanó de la gestión política de la universidad, sin acuerdo total del staff bibliotecario profesional que proponía otro análisis. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)


OpenGalaxy

top

Currently working closely with Axiell to help develop and then implement their latest ILS: Spark (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)


OTHER

top

We don't have an ILS. We have an online book catalog on Spires software. We are a small library and this is all we need. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small)


PallasPro

top

[...] along with all the public libraries of Lapland are migrating to Koha in 2017. We will also implement Finna as discovery Interface for all Lappish public libraries. Finna is a national discovery interface for Finnish libraries, museums and archives, and it is supported by The National Library of Finland. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Polaris

top

We are not happy that there will apparently be no further real development for the desktop client as everything is being focused on the web client (LEAP). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Site manager support is excellent. Receiving quotations is difficult as the Innovative Interfaces Inc. staff does not understand library needs like the Polaris ILS sales staff. Prices for services have risen rapidly since III acquired Polaris. III has a "corporate" approach in contrast to the Polaris "libraries are our partners" approach to the detriment of relationships. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are in the process of adding security gates and having trouble with meshing Polaris software with Security software. The two companies, although both say they work with each other, are having trouble working with each other. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very pleased with our program (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are part of a consortium that delivers tremendous value for our library. While I prefer an open source solution that is highly customized for our use, I would pursue this independently. We defer to our other members who, for whatever reason, are unable to develop and open source product in the foreseeable future. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

There needs to be a "not applicable" or "do not know" button for your survey. Our system is handled through our regional system so I don't have answers for some of the questions asked. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The ILS current employs the POLARIS System. Although POLARIS has been making upgrades, it seems that it could do better or the ILS could start looking for something a bit more up-to-date (user friendly/additional features). (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer service isn't as good as it was before III purchased Polaris. However, it has improved from what it was that first year after Polaris became part of III. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are now able to include our eBook and eAudio holdings in our ILS which was not an option previously - we also are now part of a consortia for eBooks/eAudios so there is a significant different in number of items in the collection than previously. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

This is our first year with Polaris. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The technical customer support remains high. The sales support is having serious problems. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

After III purchased Polaris, the customer service is not as good. They removed all video tutorials and while they offer additional in-person training (at additional cost), they appear to push a cloud product that is not complete. I refuse to move to it voluntarily since the cataloging module has not been completed. It appears they are going backwards by completing the PAC and circulation functions before cataloging....but maybe that's too traditional? The one consistent positive is that there is still a way to reach out to the other Polaris users and learn from each other as well as the site manager is really attentive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not as happy with Polaris since taken over by iii. It seems that customer service has changed. That said, Polaris is still one of the best. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Remote Desktop is still a bad way to connect to their SAS. It is OLD technology that was not designed to be connected 12 hours a day. We have had all sorts of dropped connections, once 47 times in one day, and 5 so far today.They really need to develop a desktop or web-based client. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Electronic resources is a relatively new and growing category for us, so we don't have a lot of experience using the ILS for them. Consequently, I'd consider the rating as tentative for that category. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

All have plusses and minuses. The only reason for looking at other ILS products is the possibility of Innovative eliminating Polaris or morphing it into a more expensive product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall we have been very happy with Polaris. We are working on/discovering new things we can do to make our ebook collection more visible and available. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris was and is a great product. The acquisition by III has affected customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

While Polaris has been acquired by Innovative, we've seen very little from the Polaris branch in terms of culture change that's been negative. Customer Service is still great and while some things are transitioning, it hasn't been bad at all. We're still very happy with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As I understand it, Polaris was the only company that could handle the migration of so many libraries from multiple other vendors. We are part of the [...], which is now providing the largest shared catalog in north America. We would not consider leaving that consortium. Our support comes from the library system, so we really can't speak to what it's like to work directly with Polaris. We've seen a few issues that we don't love: 1. The staff interface is small print, so it is inaccessible to visually impaired staff. 2. Some of the data on our reports is inaccurate. 3. We have had trouble with text notifications not getting to patrons. That said, we are generally satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a school library, we are a part of the public library in our city, and so are able to have delivery. This means though that we have to use the public library ILS, which is not optimized at all for the needs of a school. The trade off though is expanding my library's collection, so we attempt to make it work. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have struggled with implementing new services that interface with Polaris. Examples include pulling extracts for Collection HQ, Boopsie and Ebsco Discovery. The ILS is generally supportive but on occasion it has taken too long to address our concerns. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris has always been very helpful when we've called. They've returned our calls promptly if we've left messages. None of the staff here now was here when this system was implemented, so there are many times we call just because we've not been trained on this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The staff of [...] has been very pleased with the level of interaction we have been able to maintain with the iii staff working with Polaris. This level of collaboration and cooperation has helped us resolve technical issues related to supporting the largest--and still growing--library automation consortium in North America, to the benefit of all Polaris users. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

In 2016, [...] conducted a ILS Assessment project. During this project, we looked at user satisfaction of Polaris in addition to comparative user satisfaction for other ILS Systems. This data was used to inform the above impressions. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

All contact with company and support is through [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The library had used a stand alone Polaris system. Now part of a consortium using Polaris. I'm new to the position, so it's hard to answer these questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Excellent support when upgrading and having technical issues. We like SkyRiver. Sometimes it takes awhile for invoices and quotes. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall positive impression of Polaris as a company and its customer service. The ILS is not perfect but it is functional. We are considering purchasing a discovery layer to improve findability in the public catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We remain very happy with Polaris. Technically, the product has been rock solid. Zero down time in the three years since we migrated other than pre-planned upgrades. We are fully hosted and could not have hoped for better technical performance. The application provides most of what we need, and we're happy with the way it works. The development of the basic client does seem to have slowed noticeably, and apparently in favor of LEAP, but that's of course an uninformed impression from the outside. There are some strong improvements that could be made in the legacy client that are listed enhancements but it seems like few of the overall enhancements make the cut. Software documentation is thorough in content, but the multitude of disparate PDFs and the inconsistent updating are both annoying. I'd love to see some energy put into getting it put into a more usable format. Unified, accessible, keyword searchable, etc. Customer support for us remains fantastic. The technical support and the application support staff have been consistently first-rate. We like Polaris and are still glad we moved to it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Things seem to be more stable now with the new CEO. Still some uncertainty about how the multiple product lines will be maintained in the long term. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The only negative feedback I have about Polaris is the statistics that I gather can be incorrect. For example, the ILL statistics for the annual report are usually way off so we go by the statistics that are gathered by the ILL Technician. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are generally very happy with our ILS and the company. I do feel that over the past couple of years our communication with Polaris staff has become more 'arms length' than when we first started and had very personal attention. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have used Polaris since we migrated from Galaxy, and we have been satisfied with our relationship. However, the acquisition of Polaris by iii has affected the relationship somewhat and we are unsure of future satisfaction. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our implementation of Polaris Leap went very well. Our staff are very happy with the product. As new users we are still discovering features and engaging on enhancements. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Innovative is a great company. But they are letting Polaris die a slow death. Tech support is horrible and using the product is like pulling shards of glass from my own feet. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

The most egregious issue with Polaris is its inability to link bibs to authorities with free-floating subdivisions. This really needs fixing, but is being treated as a possible (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris is a superior product. While there are always a few features that may be improved with any system, Polaris has been very flexible and has a much better track record with providing enhancements than our past systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We liked the company Polaris Library Systems much more than the company III. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

all comments above relate to the ILS company, not our consortia (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

cannot get support through vendor-have to go through Consortium administrator. Still have pending issues vendor has not addressed. Migration resulted in many incorrect records that required cleanup. Would like to explore open ILS options, but unable to do so as a member of the Consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Can never get a real person from sales or billing when calling - always have to leave a message. Response back via voice or email is always slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Support and customer rapport have suffered post-merger. With fewer alternatives, though, there's very little recourse. Costs have still managed to go up. It's hard to be optimistic about the future of ILS software in general, much less this (or any) specific product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Not actively considering Koha but have an open conversation with [...] , a local college consortium that adopted Koha last year, supported by ByWater Solutions, I believe. Will be open to future conversations in case it makes sense for us in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Polaris going above and beyond anything that I can say to help and assist its customers. I would even state that they look at us as their partners. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Technical Customer Support has been good overall, with the same excellent technical support staff Polaris had before the buyout by Innovative. Sales and follow-through, on the other hand, has suffered. I am not sure if this is due to restructuring the organization or not. I suspect it is due to that as we still haven't heard who our new sales rep is since the last one left. Any time something needs to go to sales, I can expect a bottleneck. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our consortium makes decisions together about our ILS, and our consortium tech group takes care of all the interactions with Polaris. I don't know about a lot of the details. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The biggest problem from the technical standpoint that we've seen with this system is the inability to handle operations with large record sets - loading and managing large e-resource collections is very difficult. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since being acquired by Innovative, Polaris support has been less responsive to our needs. We're migrating to Apollo because they focus specifically on small libraries; the level of discovery that we need as a small, public library is simply not as great as what a complex ILS like Polaris delivers. The savings that migrating will generate can be far more effectively redirected into other services. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We'd like better customer service response time. We usually have a wait time of 2 months. We can not afford a different system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Polaris has good features and bad. They do major updates without fixing or changing issues/problems we have had with Polaris since the beginning. Every time Polaris does an update we have major problems and circulation isn't the same for several days. Printing to receipt printers is a huge constant problem as the printers will go offline without warning. Polaris is better than the old system we had but it could be better than what it is! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We were extremely satisfied with both Polaris as a vendor and the Polaris ILS. Customer service has definitely declined since III took over Polaris. The product is still good but the service leaves a great deal to be desired. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Polaris ILS has been a very reliable system that has had very minimal tweaks to it's configuration. We have used this product for the past eight years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

While the Polaris ILS is still a great product, and contact with any of the original Polaris employees still left is helpful, III taking over the company has definitely lowered the quality of service received from the vendor. Invoicing/billing particularly is a nightmare, customer service takes twice as long, staff turnover seems to be significant. We loved that Polaris was a smaller company with exceptional products, staff, and customer support. We no longer get that high quality support since III took over. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The current ILS the library deploys is overkill. The library uses a separate financial system (deployed throughout the College). All the library requires in an ILS is circulation and bibliograpic controls and searching. The library will be looking to move a cloud-based product. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

There has been a delay in customer service support response the past year. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Just moved into production on Polaris today. we've had a few hiccups, but we expect that things will be sorted out soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris is geared towards public libraries. I would like to see more development in features that are more utilized by academic libraries, such recalling materials, settings circulation renewal limits by patron type, and better search, display, and batch edit options for course reserve items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The 60,000 items are just those in print and in the ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


PrettyLib

top

We are interested in a purely outhosted system which needs no local installations. That is why we are looking for a new library system. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


ResourceMate

top

Outstanding customer service for non-techies. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We currently use automation services to organize our collection, not to checkout books to patrons. We are still in the process of putting our catalog online, thus the answer to the functionality question. We do not have electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library is not automated in the general sense. We have a card catalog for our patrons and use the Resource Mate system for cataloging and printing cards and labels. Interlibrary loan is through the state system which runs on Evergreen. Because we are not full members of the state system, library patron interaction with Evergreen is facilitated by the librarian. Due to the lack of reliable connectivity in the town, most patrons do not use or expect to use a more automated system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Sebina OpenLibrary

top

Sebina is born in analogical enviroment in '90 and is turning to completely web-based environment in 2017. Data Management is really working hard to help us in this evolution. Most problems come from librarians' age: we are quite all over 50 and we need young and strong people for the future, and this is not a Data Management problem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)


Senayan Library Management System

top

With the changing situation in Myanmar, the Burma Study Center has focused much more on providing support and classes to refugees and migrant workers resident in Chiang Mai, and less on "awareness raising and brodaer information dissemination. Consequently, in this evolving role, the library and ILS have remained somewhat static, and there has been no great need to consider upgrading software. Senayan software is now at Version 8; but our library continues to be staified with Senayan V3 for our purposes (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)


SIABUC

top

Las bibliotecas publicas disponemos de dos sistemas informacion que separados funcionan bien, pero si se integran serian mas efecientes nuestras labores. Siabuc + llave del saber = mejor servicio y eficacia. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)


Sierra

top

The Sierra platform has some serious deficiencies in holds and requests functionality with quite a few known bugs. For a library with a very large business in requests and holds, this adversely affects us. Also - the support from the company is extremely uneven with calls remaining unanswered for 3 months or more and redirects from support sometimes to query the customer list serv for answers to questions about their own product. The core functions of an ILS work fine but lack of true SQL access and poor support are primary reasons for my low scores. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

It seems like Innovative has been in reorganization mode for about 5 years. We need stabilization and some strong product releases. Their API is getting powerful but they need to start innovating again. They lost their competitive edge during the past 5 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Recently implemented III's NCIP responder from ILLiad (Atlas Systems). We are very satisfied. Will implement NCIP with WC Navigator in December 2016. Have set up GOBI API between YBP (Gobi) and Innovative. This is not working correctly. One short falling regarding Innovative is lack of clearly communicating its Technical Specifications for APIs to other vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Little frustrated with some really long-standing issues that have been unresolved for over a year. Clear the Holdshelf is one example. The fixes are due soon, but the wait has been significant. Otherwise, their performance on most of our issues has been okay. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra continues down its evolutionary path of development, picking up pace this year to good effect. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our system is a disappointment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

The Sierra ILS report management system is far more complicated with its "Create Lists" than The Library Corporation's reports management program. Staff has had great difficulty in generating reports. However, the consortium office help has been responsive to issues and usually been able to resolve things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Vendor seems to be moving towards providing back end data structure and pushing out the burden of programming (via APIs) to the clients. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We like our combination of vendor supported ILS (Sierra) and our own version of VuFind (Pika). The challenges of a multi-type consortium are always with us, and this limits our choice of systems to only those that are good enough for academic, public, AND school libraries. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is a tragic ILS because it has so much potential, but it just doesn't work. There are workflows that have been problematic for years that are just never addressed. Development is excruciatingly slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

ILS customer service is terrible, tickets linger with no improvements or solutions made in a reasonable time frame, functionality of features is missing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are happy with our ILS. The consortium is looking into a discovery layer, but we don't have the details at this point. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are in the middle of migration from Millennium to Sierra and have found the implementation team to be very helpful with quick response time. Overall I feel the customer service at Innovative, though far from perfect, continues to improve each year but still has room for improved training to offer consistent service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The 175,192 number includes Digital Titles. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Despite some very recent attempts at improved communication of product roadmaps, Innovative has long ago lost what little goodwill they had with us. Unless things greatly improve within the next year or so (which I very much doubt), we will begin looking at migrating to a new system in the year before our contract is up. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We became a circulating member of our library consortium on October 20, 2016 and began using Sierra for circulation on that date. So, we're still getting our feet wet. Our consortium deals directly with Innovative. The individual libraries do not. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Service Desk support has been very poor compared to previous vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra is an upgraded version of Millenium. It still has some of the slightly irritating features of Millenium but is at least familiar. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Support from Innovative has generally improved over the last year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have been trying for at least 4 months to get someone from Innovative to talk on the phone with our campus IT about the possibility of moving to cloud hosting for our Sierra system. Innovative heavily advertises cloud hosting, but when our only barrier to purchase is a one-hour phone meeting between a tech at Innovative and our campus IT staff, this appears to be impossible to achieve. Unfortunately this matches our past experience with Innovative sales, and that of others (I remember being in an Innovative Users Group forum panel session with Innovative staff where an audience member stood up and asked, "How many months is it supposed to take to get a quote for our migration to Sierra?" The Innovative staff member present was very apologetic, but I bet she's still waiting for her quote.) Support (once you've already purchased and implemented a product) is still hit or miss: some tickets are answered quickly, others (even one I had that was marked "critical") taking many months for a first response. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are migrating in Feb 2017 (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

El nuevo portal de soporte de III no funciona correctamente, a veces no se pueden enviar por este medio sino por email. El tiempo de respuesta de las incidencias a veces no es rápido y las explicaciones no son suficientes. El sistema no se integra con el sistema de préstamo de libros electrónicos de Xebook y ODilo. El paso de las funcionalidades a Sierra web es lento. La salida de los productos como MYLIBRARY no llega a Europa al mismo tiempo que en Norte América y sólo sale para el sistema operativo IOS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

items include books, bound periodicals, and audio-visual resources but not electronic access (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We recently added a second library to our system. The migration/implementation team assigned to our case was top-notch and highly supportive in getting the work done on time and answering all our questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

III is one of the top ILS companies with a full functioning robust ILS. They are slow to innovate and implement new functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative seem to be struggling after going public, then acquiring Polaris and Voyager. To the extent that I have wondered about the viability of the company over the past year. They do not seem capable of distributing an update that doesn't have a major bug included. Our hold shelf functionality doesn't work since the last update with no solution in sight as an example. My management is asking me to price and investigate other ILS systems after a server crash this year in which III handled the whole restoration process very badly - we lost 2-3 days of extra downtime unnecessarily and a weeks worth of data. We are still recovering. The server crash was not their fault but they did not put the correct tech people in charge of the rebuild immediately and they had never told us when we went to the new backup system with Sierra that the backup was partial each day (or we would have completely changed the way we did backups). They scrambled for a couple of days instead of getting us back up on our feet as you would expect. So my view of III right now is still tainted (crash happened in January 2106). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

III changed their customer support portal and system. Now if you call in, even with an emergency, the phone support staff will basically fill out the same online form I can fill out myself and say someone will get back to you soon. So, there's no point to calling in. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative's software cannot handle our consortial environment well at all. The way it configures holds has caused huge increases in our statewide inter-library delivery service, which cannot handle the volume. As a result, our customer service has suffered greatly, and our circulation has declined. Innovative promised a "fix" for these holds issues (which will only partially fix the problems), but after two years, we still haven't seen any sign of the fix. I wish we had stayed with SirsiDynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Because we're part of a larger affiliated library system we don't get to call the shots for our library. We sometimes have to accept concepts that we have had no decision making for. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Statistics reporting functions are currently broken and in review with the programmers, so getting good numbers out of the system is currently a challenge. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

III is not a responsive vendor. They do not have basic functionality in their products, seem to be doing no R&D on the various products they offer, their accounting department makes mistakes with nearly every bill, and their customer service department is horrific. They claim they have reduced their # of open tickets. At least in our case they did so by arbitrarily closing multiple cases without actually resolving the issue or communicating with us. We are very dissatisfied with III. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our impression is that Innovative burned up a lot of customer goodwill by releasing Sierra before it was finished. Also, the previous management seemed to be focused on making the company's books look good for resale, rather than on improving its products. The current management inspires more confidence in that respect. We intend to review our situation in 2018, but for the moment we're concentrating on communicating with Innovative to help them improve the product. We don't like Ex Libris' "walled garden" approach to library services platforms and don' t see a credible open-source alternative yet, so are happy to stick with Innovative for the moment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our Director feels that Innovative Sierra is at the top of the game and that Ex Libris Alma is at a similar level. III stronger in managing print material; Ex Libris may be a little better at handling electronic materal. Our Director is not happy with Summon but believes no competitor is any better at the moment. She feels google scholar would be the best if the coverage of our e-book holdings were as good as the e-journal coverage. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

trying to work out lack of communication about needed server upgrade/replacement and then trying to move to hosted has been an unhappy experience, taking III 4-6 weeks every time we're waiting for them to respond! Lots of automated "out of office" emails. One email from rep 4 days after we sent requested info "when are you sending the info?" (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've had a difficult year regarding support from Innovative. They have recognized that are are making efforts to improve the situation. I'm hopeful that this is possible and that we will go back to getting the level of support we've received in the past. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

-Some of their tech support teams have not been very good over the past year. Their Circulation support is good, but hardware and server support has been abysmal. -We have gone thru multiple sales reps over the past two years. That is usually not a good sign. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Feel like they launch half-finished products and then don't support them/improve them, move on to the next thing (mobile worklists, etc.). Seem more focused on their "process" vs. making product work the way majority of customers want it. Also nickel and dime you on everything. Since III owns everything, not huge incentive to switch to another vendor when contract up in 2019, at least at this point. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I came into this position only recently and had only experienced our particular ILS as an end user up until then. Having been a systems administrator for another ILS (SD Horizon) I was surprised at how unfriendly Sierra is and the lack of support from the company. In addition, the ILS vendor charges for everything....including a substantial amount for a re-index, which I requested so staff could at least search by series. This is just a small example of what limitations III has as a vendor and I could expand if asked. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)

Innovative continues to monetize all development... recently we discovered a need for their Patron Authentication API. Many vendors include access to APIs with their product, but Innovative asks thousands up-front and nickles and dimes for yearly "maintenance". We also had a bad experience with their "Decision Center" product--they were unable to get it working (though they barely tried) and we asked for a refund, which they eventually gave. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our implementation to Innovative Interfaces Inc.'s Sierra is recent. So, we aren't looking to migrate to another ILS in the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

With the many changes taking place in the marketplace we are looking at what is and will be available. To stay with Sierra will be a conscious decision that is made, once we have surveyed what is out there. The company seems to have regained it's direction with some changes in leadership which is encouraging. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

III seems to have lost focus and momentum, and is very expensive for what we need. Encore + EDS never really took off, and is used but not beloved on this campus. Insofar as we have such constrained resources, we have to consider other ILS options that will be equally functional but cheaper than III hosted Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have 92,669 physical items and 138,564 bibs in our system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Functional, but overpriced. Sluggish customer support. New releases are somewhat problematic with slow response to fix issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

So far Sierra has been fine. Ebsco Discovery Service works much better than Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We dropped Summon this past year because the product did not meet our expectations and customer service was wretched. In my opinion, Summon 2 is an unfinished product and we were used as beta testers. It proved more frustrating and confusing to my students. While I like the idea of a discovery service for my patrons, I am hesitant to jump into another product. Cost is also an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

My general impression of Innovative is that they have attempted and at least partially succeeded in improving their customer relations since the new president took over. I was impressed with his speech at the 2016 IUG Conference. Technically, they have had some trouble with their new support ticketing system (Supportal) which makes it frustrating when trying to contact them with an issue. While they seem to be moving in the same direction as OCLC and ProQuest, they are noticeably behind in discovery service development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Management changes have affected the customer service of Innovative. It seems the company is more invested in merging three companies instead of providing quality customer service. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Assistenza efficiente, tempestiva nelle risposte. Azienda orientata ad un continuo aggiornamento e attenta alle nuove tecnologie (Linked data, RDA, ecc.) I costi di assistenza/manutenzione annua iniziano ad essere alti in seguito ai tagli alle finanze delle Università italiane, per cui stiamo monitorando con attenzione gli sviluppi relativi a ILS Open Source (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sierra seems to be more suited to an academic library environment rather than public. This leads to some issues with regards to its operation in that what staff expected from previous LMS is not really available in the current LMS. The concept of a 'guarantor' is foreign to Sierra. This is an adult who is overall responsible for a child's loans, fines etc. Also the everything hinges on the item location rather than necessarily the branch or the patron. In that, overdue notices are issued based on item location rather than patron/branch. So a patron may get several overdue notices as items checked out are from different item locations which on Sierra can be very granular. Biggest gripe withe Sierra is that SMS is not readily part of the system for the sending of overdue and holds notices and there is no history of notices sent to particular patron. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

The Sierra System is clunky and difficult to navigate when compared to the Sirsi Dynix system the library was using in the past. The choice of using this system was not mine, but since we have had to join a new consortium it was necessary for [...] to accept this since the hosting library very kindly agreed to supervise this system at no extra charge to our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra is a decent system, but it has some bugs. Innovative is slow at fixing most problems. Their customer service has gotten a little better in the las few years. Back in 2007 they were terrible at customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative Interfaces customer support is not responsive to even the simplest requests. Implementation services for Encore EDS Discovery are painful. Encore EDS does operate as represented by Innovative Interfaces, and is not responsive to service requests. The fact that Innovative Interfaces does not work with all major third party vendors is a problem. This response was gathered with input from several staff members. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Innovative seems to be stabilizing and moving in a more positive direction as a company. Development is aimed more at public libraries than academic. New 3 tiered packages will provide less flexibility in selecting what products/services a library wants. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are members of the [...] . They provide all of our training and support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Over the last couple of years III's usually above-par customer service has suffered. With Kim Massana leaving and James Tallman coming on as CEO, we've been hopeful to see larger improvements to offset the issues. While customer service hasn't really been any worse, it hasn't gotten better, either. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative company's “nickel and dime” policy weighed us down. We keep paying for every tiny service/product and we do pay a lot of money. It's just way too much. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We as a library cooperative implemented Sierra in February of 2015. We are still working out bugs and kinks almost two years later. There was almost no training documentation with Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Please provide was another answer option for migration. We are always in the process of considering a migration. I hope this makes sense; it is a very fluid decision rather than a simple, yes or no. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Clunky and hard to navigate for patrons and staff. Not at all user friendly. Often crashes and freezes, so not reliable. Very difficult and complicated to run simple lists and other necessary functions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Product support remains an aggravating weakness. We only get a timely response by making a fuss. There is no recognition that a consortium is a sophisticated customer unlikely to trouble the support desk with basic issues. Too often inexperienced staff are assigned to calls that, because we are a consortia, are inherently about complicated issues. Recovery from the damage done by inexperienced tinkering is often a larger headache than the original problem. The support culture is antagonistic to procedural checklists, so that routine actions like moving us to a new release invariably lead to a day or two of coping with failed functionality because the installers forgot to turn back on a number of processes they turned off in order to enable the upgrade. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

common sense functions such as spell check seems to be a no brainer for ILS's, yet ours doesn't have one. There are other small tweaks that would make an ok ILS be a great ILS. However, that being said, our ILS does a fairly decent job. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Every year at IUG, there is hope for the future of Innovative. However, in practice, the service is still below par and the products are nowhere near what's needed. While we've been happier with Sierra, the pace at which the company works is extremely slow compared to other software vendors. The company lacks focus and the growing pains have been evident for the past 5 years. Improvements have been almost at snail pace and some are almost laughable (such as the new ticketing system). And, yet, they continue to charge outrageous amounts for products and services. We dropped Encore after yelling for so many years about the product's issues. If there were another option out there, we could consider it. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

This ILS does not handle adding or removing subscription ebooks as well as it could. And batch processes are more difficult in tech services (e.g. scanning a truck of books and changing status of all). Overall customer support is very responsive and helpful. The other complaint I have is their antiquated Administrative Portal, which looks and feels a lot of like DOS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

While we are most satisfied with our current ILS, we are excited about the possibilities that FOLIO presents.d (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra was a considerable improvement over Millennium (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The company's costs for adding enhancements to the system that we have are very high. In fact, quoted us one price which we thought we could do, then 3 months later, quoted a much higher price, which priced us out of being able to order the enhancement. Also, the company should provide better statistics gathering/collection management tools in the basic ILS. It's starting to feel clunky. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I don't pick the ILS for our library. We are a college under a bigger school that makes the decision. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

I think III is the best that's available but it too (as with all library vendors) struggles to move forward with true product changes that would benefit libraries and patrons. Sierra is a load on top of Millennium, the phone product from III uses software from... believe it was 2001 (old and unstable). Too much technology baggage, some vendor needs to start from scratch and build a new, more agile solution set. I'd like to see Microsoft get into the library arena - the library industry needs a vendor of that size that has the technical resources needed to develop and adequately maintain systems of this complexity. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

III has really gone downhill. Not only it it harder to get customer service, but even requests for sales quotes go into a black hole. It's lost that hometown family feel. EBSCO support remains top-notch. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Want systems with more interoperability within and among systems, better electronic resource integration and management, BIBFRAME support, better ability to pull data for exchange with RAPID, WEST, HathiTrust, discovery services, more synchronicity. Better financial integration for billing, fines, fees, etc. More intuitive, functional public display to make easier for patrons. Less expensive, more customization. Better functionality and control of settings for individual libraries in consortia. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative appear to be undergoing a significant cultural shift at the moment and more regular innovation and better customer service is very much part of that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Problems with the ILS are mainly about reporting and statistics, rather than general functionality. We have noticed a much worse overall system reliability and performance since our move to the cloud. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Running reports is cumbersome and takes many steps to create simple lists. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We do worry about rising costs pricing us out of the system under our current budget constraints. We suspect in the next few years, there will be more incentives to go hosted with the vendor (we currently are a software only site and our IT dept supports the hardware and OS of the library servers) as SaaS becomes a preferable solution. Additionally, we understand our vendor is currently considering new pricing models for customers and we are eager to see what opportunities/challenges this may bring. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Support: Some support people are wonderful and very efficient. Others are bad. We have several tickets languishing that we have no idea what the status is. Encore support is particularly bad. III currently seems to have a dearth of people who understand both libraries and computers. On the bright side, III staff have started to occasionally post updates to the listserv which are helpful and have been very informative. Development: Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a lot of hope in future releases. Recent releases seem pretty buggy and to add insult to injury there's a major hold bug found more than a year ago that is still a problem. Allegedly it's suppose to be fixed in an upcoming releases but they keep saying that and it hasn't been so far. Having limited SQL access is great (more would be better) and the development of APIs is also good. However, on the listserv it feels like two classes of libraries are starting to emerge: those that have the knowledge and time to provide supplemental development and those that do not. I worry that III sees the APIs as a way to avoid core product development. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

III is currently developing new applications to deal with Electronic resources which will transform the workflows for e-resources. We are part of the beta group and are confident that these new developments will improve management of e-resources significantly. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The ILS itself (Sierra) is not bad but the company support has decreased in quality and the customer satisfaction from spanish libraries (including us) I would say that has decreased as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] Consortium (...) is a non-profit organization with the main focus on management and development of the shared catalogue [...] and the integrated library system Sierra. Currently consortium has 17 members which bring to the catalogue approximately 90 libraries. The answers above were given as a general opinion, not from any specific library. We haven't answered about the management of electronic resources as we haven't implemented any specific module which Innovative Interfaces actually provides to manage these resources. The relatively low assessment from our side is based on the problems in the system and communication we have been experiencing lately. If we had answered to this survey some time ago, the results would have been different (and probably better). (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are not satisfied with the ERM functionality (using CORAL instead), but a new version has been developed which we haven't evaluated yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

III Sierra is not very comfortabel in consortium use (like us library is part of consortium) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

System goes down monthly at least. Company is owned by property flippers just looking for a place to sell it for more than they bought it for. The company itself makes no obvious investment in technology improvements. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

The company says they're committed to their customers, but as far as everyday support, it certainly doesn't seem like they are. For support tickets that can't be resolved and go into software engineering, they'll never get fixed. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We hardly hear from the company any more. The Calif. Sales Rep left and has not been replaced. I like the updates to the core product (Sierra) but we don't seem to much influence what enhancements will be worked on, and ancillary products from this company are generally to be avoided. (Slow development, never completed functionality, high prices.) Support is extremely hit-or-miss and they seem to have no idea how to improve it, though I do think they'd like to. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since so many records are now loaded for electronic resources that don't have "items", you may wish to update this question to be number of titles which is 652,948 for us and why its so important to us to have a system that can effectively handle this volume. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative need to give more attention to the customers in the region by supporting Arabic language. (Library type: National; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our dissatisfaction with Sierra stems from he fact that there has been little in the way of improvement in making workflows and system administration more intuitive and less clunky. We're essentially dealing with the same underlying Innopac code as we have for years. We should be seeing more streamlining and more functionality implemented. The Sierra enhancement process is not working well. Many winning enhancement requests submitted over the years have not been implemented - we're long overdue for many of them. The product is increasingly clunky and dated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative has made great improvement in releasing product enhancement regularly with quality control. While each release has a smaller number of enhancements, it comes on schedule, it works and does not cause any outage. We are more inclined to upgrade to the latest release. Innovative also makes great effort in acknowledging any issues resulting from upgrades. They respond quickly and release subsequent fixes in a timely manner. They actively inform customers using IUG. Innovative has released a number of Sierra APIs to the delight of customers. We encourage Innovative to develop tighter integration with vendors like Baker & Taylor, Midwest Tape, Ingram, Hoopla, Zinio, Freegal, etc. Innovative is no longer actively developing Encore Synergy. Customers are encouraged to migrate to EDS. This is more costly and is out of reach for library like us who is facing funding reduction. Encore Synergy was a product they introduced to replace ResearchPro and it was supposed to be a product of the future. Its decision to stop its development leads to a loss of confidence in the sustainability of their product, and more important, in their selection of products to develop. To compensate customers who have invested in the development of this product, there should be an incentive or reward to ease the financial burden to migrate to a new product. Innovative is retiring CIRCA. The upgrade path is to purchase Mobile Worklist which again is not economically feasible to us. Innovative should consider leveraging the features of one ILS to build and develop the other ILS. For example a popular feature such as checkout receipt showcasing customer’s savings for checkout versus purchase of the same items is available to Polaris but not Sierra. This feature should be considered and made available to Sierra customers through general enhancement instead of costly custom programming. Innovative is introducing new pricing structure. We would like to have more ready access to these new pricing structures. This is especially important as we work on budgeting. Innovative has kept Encore customization to minimal even though it is something we have been asking for year in year out. Innovative’s help desk support has improved in this past year, but it is still very inconsistent. The quality of the staff varies from center to center. It is especially noticeable for the help desk center in India. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

significant pieces of the ILS were not included in contract. significant configuration and system work falls to us even though we are hosted. vendor has good future vision, however, we are not fully implemented and there are pieces that may never be fully implemented due to infrastructure. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Sierra system is generally reliable, but ability for customization is limited and many aspects of the administrative software are very arcane and/or archaic both in terms of functionality and user interface. Similar comments for the Encore web catalog interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The market does not have enough competition (III, ProQuest, TLC) that you are monopolized by these companies. Financial resources are so tight, that libraries can not effectively use open source or develop systems to their needs as once was done in the 1970s. III is not managed by real librarians and so they have no clue what is happening in the field by librarians having to tolerate their system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just migrated Millennium to Sierra December 2016. It was easy for our staff to get used to the new system since Sierra is from the same ILS vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

What the salespeople say a system can do and what it actually does are two different things. Even though we were careful to ask very specific, detailed questions, we were promised functionality that didn't exist. The implementation was rough - lots of staff turnover - and the support has continued to be bad. Recent efforts by the company have improved support a bit, but there is still a long ways to go. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our Consortium makes the decisions based on the vote of 130 libraries. We go with what they select. This system could be great but they are glacial at making it so. We were the Beta group so I expected this but after this many years I thought it would be fixed. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The cost of additional products or enhancements continue to be an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

No Comment. There just aren't words that can be repeated to explain the last 2 months with our ILS and how it has soured our feelings towards them. The numbers we are submitting accurately reflect our feelings at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Innovative has been taking steps to improve customer support - but, it still is more uneven than I'd like. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Having problems for months getting program to start up at opening with ILS response being the web product will fix it. However, implementation of web product keeps getting pushed back nearly a year with no specific date of implementation yet and no fixes for start-up problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

III keeps promsing better products and support, but no real changes have occurred in years. Even Sierra isn't much different from Millennium that has been around since the millennium. The much-promised SQL and API interfaces have been rolled it so slowly it will be a decade before it reaches the level by which we were seduced to move to Sierra. And customer support is reaaly worse than last year, and last year was the worst ever. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Generally happy with Innovative Interfaces but cost is becoming an issue when considering extra features such as Vital, MyLibrary, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We need a more involved vendor rep (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

The Sierra user interface is very old, even despite a recent upgrade. Would like to see III go to a fully web/browser based solution. Sierra is very slow to load. Editing of patron records sometimes unexpectedly allows the user to edit the field name - this is really confusing for our work study students. Overall user interface is very outdated and doesn't seem to have changed since the late 1990s! (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The system is overall reliable. however, the inadequate holds functionality causes consortial and statewide issues as far too many transfers of materials result. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are still live with Aleph, anticipating migration to Sierra in July 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

We had several bad experiences with III's customer support and representatives in 2015-2016 which were frustrating enough to make us consider migrating to a different ILS (we've just started researching options). Cost is another factor, especially since we got hit with additional fees for work-arounds to a problem III couldn't solve. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Our consortium dictates our ILS. Member libraries do have input in the selection of an ILS for the entire consortium, but our input is limited. Overall, the consortium membership is an excellent situation for this small library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The search function of Sierra is extremely weak on the Staff side of things. On the patron (Encore) side of things, it seems to be much better. Often times if you type in a keyword, and the word is in the title, Sierra will still bring up a large number of seemingly unrelated titles. I guess I would say that the system is not very intuitive from a staff perspective. As a very small library, we do not use much of the other functionality of the system, such as acquisitions or for weeding the collection. It can be difficult to generate reports with the necessary information because setting the parameters is confusing, and many times counter-intuitive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are not currently considering migrating to a new ILS because there are no systems that have the functionality that we currently enjoy. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

SIERRA implemeted in 26 of the academic libraries of [...] consortium. This mini consortium of 26 libraries and the project are called [...] SIERRA is supported by a local porvider who is cooperates with the mother-company. None of the libraries communicates directly with the company in U.S. There is a team of 4 colleagues (librarian and ITs, staff members of libraries that are members of [...] ) who have been trained for providing support to libraries. They communicate with the local provider as well (beyond every library's particular communication for solving special matters which came up in their migration). (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Seems like vendor is more interested in in selling new functions than in fixing know problems that have been repeatedly pointed out to them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Since I am answering on behalf of the consortia, our questions are directly to the vendor. However, all member LIBRARY questions go to the consortia office, and are passed on if we can't fix it. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The above responses were for Innovative Interfaces. We have only been using the EBSCO Discovery Services (EDS) for a short time, so we did not include them in the evaluation concerning customer services, etc. So far, EDS seems to be meeting the needs of both patrons and staff better than our previous interface, OCLC Worldcat Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra should not stop paging for items which are only available at one library after 2 days, whether the library is open or not. We have had problems with Sierra freezing, and it is often slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We migrated to the Sierra system from Horizon in 2016 by joining the [...]. This was a big change for us in that we went from hosting our ILS to letting the consortium handle the ILS. Our impressions of the vendor, therefore, necessarily are filtered by the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have a large technical team of system librarians and programmers. We would like to be able to change more system parameters by ourselves. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Most in need of improvement is the embedded proxy server, but considering that not all Library Services Platforms even offer a proxy server, we are willing to work with them to improve the product while we consider a third party solution (EZ-Proxy). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

This product does too much that we don't need, not enough that we do need, the ticket system is too complex and takes too long, their billing and sales departments are needlessly aggressive, and it is too expensive for what we need. That said, we use it extensively for our interlibrary loan and don't want to risk that. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

It would be great if it came with an online ordering functionality and easy integration with Oracle finance system and Access to Memory (ATOM) software (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is one complete system but it doesn't meet our expectation especially on audit trail, it doesnt trace who perform what and which terminal. Even the history was only kept for 14 days. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

There seems to be increased attention paid to public libraries which is a good thing for us, less so for our colleagues in our public university system. There has been a lot of focus on improving their customer support model, which is still not 'there' and I continue in a wait and see attitude. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

En este momento estamos en proceso de implementar Sierra y Encore Duet (Encore+EDS). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We in a consortium and will not easily move in 2017 to new ILS (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


SOLARS7

top

Most Korean librarians including me are not informed about lots of open source products. Of course, if you want to implemented to each institution’s situation, you ended up to spend few money.. but it is very important to librarians to know there's a way to use those open sources. Lots of Korean academic libraries suffering tremendous budget cuts.. and sometimes it is scary to going down Korean ILS companies fear towards massive foreign company like ExLibris. I hope there would be more competitions for ILS market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)


Spydus

top

We are on an old version so we only have limited support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've just had an upgrade on our LMS system so the information here reflects some of the teething issues we've had with the system, most notably we've moved from a thick client to a web client. We aren't all that happy with the speed of the web client. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Development of the web based version of Spydus 10 is welcome, however responsive display on mobile devices still seems to have issues. Ongoing trouble with development/design of the system seeming to take a long time and often bugs are delivered with updates, QA appears incomplete and an antiquated help desk system (from us as customers perspective) are areas that need priority attention. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have had Spydus for about a year now so it's hard to comment on whether support has got better or worse as we moved from project management to general support earlier this year, hence the middle of the road rating. We will have a better idea next year. On the whole Spydus is a good product, particularly for frontline staff and the end user. The back-end modules, such as cataloguing and acquisitions are much more clunky and would benefit from improvement. As an organisation, Civica staff are helpful and courteous. Their communication sometimes lets them down a little and, although they did deliver the installation on time as stated, some of the additional elements have taken a long time to get in. On the whole, we are happy! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We operate as a managed service customer of Civica and this has been very successful for our operations. It allows the most recent version to be installed although we have some reservations about moving to a completely cloud solution and still operate using the thick client. Our active user group is a bonus when seeking assistance for problems and developments. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

the product is in process of being redeveloped as a cloud based service. Integration of online resources has not been extensive; LMS blames online vendors , online vendors blaming the LMS vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha was a high contender when switching to Spydus. Internal ICT department was not keen on supporting OSS however. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The system goes a long way to meeting our needs and is a massive improvement over our last system, Amlib. It brings electronic and physical resources together quite nicely. There are some tweaks that would make things even better. There are developments due over the coming 12-18 months which will resolve most of our outstanding issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Currently contracted to upgrade to Spydus 10 early in 2017 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

While we enjoy the system for numerous reasons including easy integration with LibraryThing For Libraries and that the bookings feature can be used for equipment management outside of ILS uses the company does a poor job of providing customer and technical support for its US-based customers (a billing office is located in the US but customer and tech support are located in the UK) and continually fails to have a presence at national library conferences or otherwise make itself visible. The product is terrific but it needs to be better marketed and supported in the US. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Managed services has resulted in an improvement of system performance, but upgrading to it -- and the subsequent currently required web client -- resulted in significant functionality, configurations and settings lost in the process. Although many of these have been resolved with bug fixes, they usually require a server upgrade which can be very costly if not already included in contract schedule. Current version of OPAC requires knowledge of how to edit extremely precarious code, and therefore requires advanced skills and training. We are yet to upgrade to the latest version because a suitable Acquisitions module is not yet available for it. The upgrade to Spydus version 10 results in a challenging mix of web / thick based client scenario where half of the modules are not yet ready in the web client and so therefore users must still install and then utilize the thick client software. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Civica is too big and complicated for our small college operation. It is too costly as well. Looking for a product that is easy to use and costs less. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

The additional modules for the ILS including Event Management and Business Information make this a complete package for us. We use the global operations functionality to enable seamless transactions between 4 public and 2 academic libraries without needing to align our charges, loan periods etc. The other module that we make full use of is the Archives programme which meets all international and national standards and has included functionality for Geo location plus a digital repository. The authority records apply across the ILS and Archives programme and enable integrated and filtered search options (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not enough focus on eContent or mobile device functionality. Promise more than they can deliver. Very good at core features. Acquisitions needs a lot of work. Excellent user group. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Implemented a new hosted solution with Civica in October 2015. Some basic functions still not working properly and we are still waiting for some add ons which were promised as available in the tendering process. We are dissatisfied with the upgrade process as it is lengthy, cumbersome and so far has caused issues with our previously set parameters. Not enough UK based decision making - all big issues have to go to Australia. Support calls are frequently closed without a resolution. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)


Symphony

top

Alma seems to be dominating the academic library space, esp. in GA. Sirsi doesn't seem to focus on academics and doesn't completely understand their own products. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Comments regarding vendor satisfaction relate to our consortium, which handles relations with SIRSI and provides support for desktop Workflows implementation and Enterprise public web interface. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have been a SD library since 1989, they have worked to meet the needs of a varied market. I have been satisfied with their products and the customer support staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Decision to select BLUECloud Campus suite over Alma was a very close call. Alma is more mature and being fully web based already is a distinct benefit; but maybe less open to bespoke development whereas BLUEcloud suite is newer and customers can actively participate in the development and piloting of the product. This engenders a good relationship with the company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We use Bibliocommons as our discovery layer. We have found that the quality of customer service from the company has steadily been declining, as has the quality of the product. We are considering doing an evaluation of all the discovery layer products in 2017 to see if there are any better options in the marketplace. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are very happy with SirsiDynix and what it offers our libraries (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer support can vary considerably. Sometimes knowledgeable and solves the problem; other times misses the mark (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would like to see improved customer service. Some products are not consortia friendly or for a system our size. Example ERC (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I don't think that the product is our biggest issue. Our issues relate to being a recent partner to an established consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

There seems to be a lot of "updating" in the system over the last few years. We've had promises of implementation of new products but we've yet to see them. Not happy with how slow this process seems to be. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

While SD Enterprise provided a solid OPAC search tool for our ILS data and had nice electronic integration features with eRC capabilities, BiblioCommons has become our OPAC choice due to the variety of choices available for patrons in content management for lists and "community" features. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix are developing lots of ILS augmentation tools that are potentially very powerful and useful. By example, MobilCirc is a tool we are trying to develop our practical use of that is working well. BookMyne as well as a flexible mobile compliant Enterprise interface lift our productivity and uptake by the community. BlueCloud analytics and the new BlueCloud tools dramatically increase our access to better efficient tools. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Past experience of both SirsiDynix and Ex Libris very positive; ProQuest less so but see improvement through integration of ProQuest products in Ex Libris support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are adding Enterprise - SirsiDynix's discovery/enhanced OPAC. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix has done a good job of introducing new products to help libraries serve their customers. My biggest concern is that sometimes products are released for use before they are capable of performing as promised/intended. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

1 person library. I will tend to use the system used by most libraries in my geographic area because it gives me a local support system and because my patrons will be used to it too (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

On a day-to-day basis, the system works well, is reliable and does not experience downtime. It performs all the basic functions well and staff are able to resolve all issues with patron, circulation and catalog records in an efficient manner. We are always looking for improvements and for the vendor to stay abreast of trending technology. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix are very slow are implementing new applications. Symphony is not very user friendly and at times seems very antiquated. Very few hyperlinks. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

SirsiDynix would be a better company if they had an easier way for other companies to integrate with their ILS. For example, we have been waiting over a year and a half since the last executive meeting we had with ChiliFresh and SirsiDynix at the 2015 User Conference in which we are trying to make it so that patrons don't have to create "another" account in order to add comments to individual titles. Also ILLiad would be better if we could use SIP2 instead of patrons having another account. SSO should be a higher priority. Also the ability to gather statistics from the mobile App BookMyne, the support of Android on their BookMyne+, the ability to use Social Library (Facebook App) on a mobile device -- has never worked. There is no progress towards fixing certain issues on these and many more. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

40,000 books, 150,000 eBooks, 40 databases, over 4000 other materials, including DVDS (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

As part of a consortium, I feel our contract is such that we do not have access to the latest tools and technology available through our ILS. There are many features that are not available to us, and the company will not make them available to us except at increased cost. Our ILS has not been updated noticeably in several years, even though there have been many advances in the software as a whole. Our upgrades seem to all be at the network level, and not at the user level. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

We moved to our new ILS about a year ago. We share our system with [...] . Enterprise has been well received by out students, however the staff interface, Workflows, has issues. Particularly Serials and Acquisitions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The ILS is a valuable host for the library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently in a hosted environment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are relatively satisfied with our SIrsi Dynix Symphony product. We are a long-term software customer with this company, and we are not looking to change our automation company. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS is provided by our library consortium. We migrated to be better connected to the consortium earlier this year. The process was frustrating and SIRSI employees were less than helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Everything in this survey is based on our relationship with our consortium. NOT the ILS company. So, this is pretty much useless as surveys go. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our statewide consortial membership is driving the consideration of migration away from our current ILS vendor. For ourselves, we are still happy with Symphony and EDS but will follow the decision of the group (which is considering SirsiDynix in addition to the others) Sirsi's slow development of BLUEcloud is a problem for the group. We are also watching EBSCO's progress with FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Sirsi product we currently use is not as functional or intuitive as we would like. Reports are very finicky to create or customize. We also have to pay for a separate bibliographic service to import records for cataloguing. The cost is prohibitive for a small library and the customer service is inadequate. Response to our requests for technical assistance is slow and answers to specific questions are often cagey, especially as our contract approaches expiry. Contract lengths are also too long for such a rapidly evolving technological climate and the terms are too binding. Biblionix has been very straightforward in their response to our inquiries and has even provided an unlimited trial of their product for us to assess with no pressure. Their product appears to be more intuitive and functional, with better search accuracy, simpler report structures, easy built-in importing of bibliographic records and excellent customer support, all at a much lower cost and with much shorter, less binding contracts. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have no direct dealings with the SirsiDynix company or their support services. All of our support services are from our Consortium, which is why I left those questions blank. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Current system is dated and we must upgrade to Sirsi's Enterprise Discovery tool or BlueCloud products. Sirsi Symphony's search algorithm is dated and not helpful to our users. BlueCloud does not seem to be fully developed to other libraries' satisfaction. WMS implementation using (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

SirsiDynix is a great company and very innovative and progressive. Sadly it doesn't cater for small specialist libraries similar to academic and does not provide a suitable facility for managing electronic resources. Both of which is most important for this Library. In comparison Koha is significantly cheaper with a simpler system. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our library is part of the [...] , and systems are pretty much run by the [...] , with limited information sharing. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Need to open separate windows to do different tasks on same item or patron, not practical in busy library, also requires separate software program and knowlege base to generate even simple lists for weeding and patrons, now they are changing to another software program, and training has not even begun for this one. No manual provided for this software or the last one we used. No onliine support unless the consortium contacts them with an issue or question. No way to easily order items using the catalog records. This is the third system I have used in my career at 4 different libraries over 20 years and this is the poorest of the three! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

I like SirsiDynix as a customer service company, but they don't have a modern ILS/LSP really so that is why I am not considering them in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am frustrated that Sirsi's business model includes a 3.9% annual price increase. The bottom line is big for the expensive ILS and that percentage becomes significant. I don't feel that we receive upgrades and benefits worth a 3.9% increase. Library budgets don't keep up with inflation and library salaries certainly do not so it's frustrating to see this continue to rise and rise and rise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

SirsiDynix has outstanding Customer Service, and their people are wonderful to work with. They are responsive to our questions and concerns and we are particularly pleased with their Software As A Service, which we use for both our ILS and Discovery Interface. We are happy, satisfied customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very US centric. Not interested in other countries requirements e.g. adequate cash reports, checks and balances. Doesn't meet promised release dates outside the US. Reports are either clunky (Symphony) or overly complex (Analytics). Don't feel there's been very much progress in the last 5 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would like to explore a new ILS, however it is not possible for various reasons. If however [...] sponsors an ILS for the community colleges in [...] we will be eager to move our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Stable, service-oriented (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are disappointed with performance of Symphony in a consortial environment, especially with the current Workflows interface which is getting very long in the tooth. Both searching for titles and management of holds are more difficult than they should be. However the new BlueCloud Analytics reporting tool is a big improvement over the tool we used before, i.e. Director's Station. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

The number of items in the library's collection includes downloadable items. It hasn't included them in the past. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Much of our discontent could be caused by the consortium we are in. We are not happy with SirsiDynix but do not feel as if the consortium officers are listening to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

SirsiDynix have great vision moving to the BLUEcloud, just wish development could happen more quickly. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix are a good ILS company in terms of customer support, however their pace of development for functionality such as e-resource management and integrated resource discovery has been slow compared with other ILS vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While SirsiDynix has been offering an increasing number of webinars to showcase new products and discuss ideas that affect the broader library community - events I've been happy to participate in - I've also noticed a drop in the degree of personal contact I have with company representatives. I used to have twice-yearly conversations with a Library Relations Manager, but those calls ended with her retirement and I would be hard pressed to name our current LR contact, if we even have one at all. I've also had some difficulties in my dealings with sales: evidently a member of their sales team left the company abruptly, and the one who's left seems completely overwhelmed. It's strange, to say the least, to be working with a vendor that isn't jumping at the opportunity to bill for more services. Overall, Symphony continues to meet our ILS needs, but I do wonder what's going on at SirsiDynix on a corporate level. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix has improved both thier products and their customer service quite a bit in the past few years, but still tends to label bugs, even those that break previous functionality, as "requested enhancements." I'll admit that many of my low number answers stem from my reluctance to upgrade, because I have to look through pages of release notes and posts from other customers to see what kinds of gotchas I'm going to encounter. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] is still very satisfied with the partnership we have with SirsiDynix. We hope BLUEcloud Campus will come together sooner than later. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

In my personal opinion (which is not shared by all) the SirsiDynix product if a very effective tool for managing our library collection. We receive excellent training and support through our library consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Market leader, generally a professional and knowledgeable service. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix's support has greatly improved over the years. I'm happy to say it's now rare for me to encounter someone responding to one of our requests for assistance who hasn't a clue and needs to bring someone else in to figure out the solution. That still does happen, unfortunately, but it's now the exception instead of the norm. We've added their discovery product, Enterprise and their reporting solution, BC Analytics in the last year. Now we offer our patrons a more familiar search system in our catalog and can run more meaningful reports to better understand what parts of our collection are being used and by whom. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

No vendor is perfect and given the complexities of modern ILSes I think SirsiDynix is right there near the top. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Happy with SirsiDynix Symphony WorkFlows. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are installing Enterprise and ERC starting today. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very satisfied with SirsiDynix as a vendor--especially in the last few years. They have gone to great lengths to be more transparent and responsive to customers' needs--from product development to sales to billing. I only wish they could hire even more developers to be able to complete and improve the BLUECloud products faster and better. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Over the last few years, our library vendor has been moving all of their services from a client based platform to a web based platform. We are impressed with the new products that are now available, and believe this vendor is moving in the right direction. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We currently have Enterprise and Summon Discovery but looking at EDS integration with Enterprise - testing shortly. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix seems to be moving in the right direction with its Blue Cloud web-based products and SaaS offerings. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix's development timetable is extremely slow, and not in tune with current trends. For example, their OPAC software, 'Enterprise', is not a responsive web design for mobile device usage, despite years of requests by customers. That is scheduled for the next version upgrade 3-4 months away, assuming it is not delayed for any reason. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a [...] joint use library- a school and public library combined. Our LMS is managed by Public Library Services. They coordinated training, migration, implementation , upgrades, repairs and maintenance and enhancements for us. In the future we would be aligned with whatever system suits our Public Libraries SA Network.We have a great local IT staff member but PLS also assist with statistics, issues, inter library loans etc etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our Regional Library is in the process of implementing a regional ILS for the [...]. The project is still in processing and several vendors have been investigated. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Solid LMS almost never off line, updates done efficiently, and good customer care. No complaints with the system. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This library currently runs Symphony but is under contract to migrate to Koha through Bywater later in 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Probably the biggest complaint with this vendor is that considering the amount of money they charge, they provide limited free training to use their product. Much of their self paced training requires you to pay, and the free training content that they do offer is not always easy to follow. Considering that their product is not user friendly this can be frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

The legacy Workflows software is stable and meets the needs of our member libraries. The BLUECloud components still lag in terms of features by the consortium members. We are locally hosted and recently we've found that upgrades of middleware are becoming increasingly complicated as SSL certs and other pieces need to updated as well. We are considering migrating to SirsiDynix SAAS platform. For a future survey, it might be useful to ask if the site is locally hosted or hosted by the ILS vendor. I'm curious to know how this trend is evolving. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

It is too early to opine on the change in service over the last year as Symphony was only implemented in March 2016. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I absolutely adore [...] employees. Wow. We would not have an ILS if it hadn't been for this consortium and their great set up for implementation and technical support for all IT issues. Thank you [...]! (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We rely on our state-wide consortium for most of the support and management of our ILS and Discovery Service. Ebsco and SirsiDynix have collaborated to integrate their services, which is a big advantage to us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

For support, I really don't know the answer because we send our questions to the consortium and they deal with the vendor (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sirsi migration from Millennium was problematic. Tech support is weak. EDI integration is poor. Geez (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

None (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The company that support ILS in UTM is competent, supportive and reliable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The All wales Library Management System is already in operation in North Wales and will be rolled out to South Wales over the next few years. [...] will be one of the first of the South wales Authorities to be put on this system (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)

Our consortium is migrating into another consortium using the same ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are considering migrating to a cheaper system which would provide most of the functionality of Symphony. First on my list will be Apollo, and I plan to reach out to them this year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There have been bugs in the software, not unwanted features but actual bugs, that have gone for years without being addressed. Our consortia tells us that not enough people have complained about them therefore they do not get on the "to-be-fixed" list. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We experienced quite a large number of initial troubles when implementing our new LMS in early 2016. This was in part due to data corruption and incompatible records. Sirsi Dynix have worked hard and effectively to remedy many of those problems (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

SirsiDynix continues to provide enhancements and solutions in line with our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our library collection consists of only electronic resources obtained through the LOUIS consortium. We are slowly acquiring open source items. Since we do not have print items, we use EDS as the main patron access point on the library website. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Please note that we are part of a consortium and our options are limited to what the consortium provides. I suspect much of the problems with the ILS are actually attributable to our consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are put of an [...] that work together to choose the best ILS for multiple college sizes. Ontario Colleges Library Service hosts and does most of our support. [...] will contact SirsiDynix as needed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Library moved to Sirsi Saas production servers in December 2014. Company is very responsive to server operating issues. Help desk support has moved to primarily online and makes it difficult to obtain immediate assistance from support. Working through online help desk helps them keep track of tickets and reoccurring system issues but there have been numerous instances where technician(s) simply fail to respond for days. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Have been slow to transition from WorldCat Local to WorldCat Discovery due to not all functionality had been moved over to WCD. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Reporting stats are very crucial. Reporting module is not user friendly and has different results each time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

I'm the automation coordinator for the [..] and oversee the library collections for 12 High Schools, 18 Middle Schools, 80 Elementaries and 6 other types and 1 professional library. We have been with this company since 1989. At the time, few automation software companies that could handle such a large union catalog for multiple sites were available. Over the years, we have done a lot of customization. In some instances, there are many components we don't use. I would have liked a friendlier look for elementary schools. Because this company is so large, they do keep up with trends happening in the automation field. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Symphony has given us much more flexibility and information than our last ILS. We love it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our Library Name has changed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Direct contact with the vendor is done through our consortium network office, as is any contract negotiation. Any open source products that might be under consideration would come through our network office. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Solid ILS just not geared for schools out of the box. It takes manipulation to get it to do what we need it to do at the campus level. The OPAC is not easily configured for student use. It is possible, just not easy. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We feel the ILS system we have would work better if it were more Windows oriented in the sense that we could open the 'Notes' field from a patrons account page rather than having to back out to another page. The system can be clunky and feel outdated in that respect. As well as with billing, it would be grand if it were set up to enter the amount paid and the system deducts it smoothly from what is owing. Rather than having to apply coin to each individual charge. Very time consuming and cumbersome. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Because we are a part of a consortium our system does not have much functionality. It's one of the trade offs, the system itself is a fraction of the cost of going our own way, but it is also less functional to the same fraction. Also, as a number of libraries are involved and we cannot talk directly to Sirsi some issues take a very long time to resolve. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We migrated to a new platform last year (SirsiDynix's BLUEcloud Campus Suite with EDS integration) and considered both WMS and Alma/Primo seriously. Given the particular needs of our library, which has complex physical collections and specialized digital collections, the only solution that would work well for us was BLUECloud Campus with EDS integration. Two of its advantages were the ability to migrate "bound with" records efficiently (which WMS had trouble with) and the ability to incorporate full metadata from key EBSCO databases (which Primo didn't allow for). Both WMS and Alma would have been better for staff in some ways, and there is significant frustration with Symphony's limitations but, all considered, the BLUEcloud/EDS combo best met our needs. Our choice was a bet on the ability of SirsiDynix to fulfill its long-term vision for the BLUEcloud suite, based partially on the demonstrated willingness of SirsiDynix to collaborate well with other companies like EBSCO and OpenAthens. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our ILS Vendor is very open to customer feedback and involvement in product development which is very much appreciated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Espanola transitioned from Winnebago Spectrum to SirsiDynix Symphony during 2016, thus we are still in the process of correcting and ensuring completeness of each record - it's a process (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall our satisfaction level with Sirsi Dynix is good, however, we are somewhat unhappy with our OPAC presentation and its functionality with end users. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would only consider open source as part of the consortium. Our parent organization strongly discourages the use of open source for software we manage directly. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Troodon

top

RFID technologies are very costly and loss of books or other resources can not be compensated, after its implementation its AMC also cost a lot which is a very tough decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


UNILIB

top

Although the ILS we currently use is robust and stable, it is not customizable almost at all and the public, as well as the librarians' interface is terribly outdated. The ILS has almost no support for digital materials but there is talks of development in that direction. The company has established partnership with Ebsco so they offer their version of a Discovery system through Ebsco-Unibis APIs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)


Unknown

top

I am new to the position and have no idea what ILS is. (Library type: School; collection size: very small)

i m very satisfied (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


V-smart

top

We have been broadly satisfied with the V-Smart system for print resource management (with some caveats). However V-Smart is a traditional LMS with very little ERM functionality and we are now considering a migration to a new general Library Services Platform. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Virtua

top

The library is planning to be up on Koha in the fall of next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

VTLS was bought out by Innovative a few years ago. I doubt we would work with them again in the future simply because the cost of their products would be beyond our reach most likely. We are following the Folio project, as supported by EBSCO, with some interest. We hope it will be a game changer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I think ILS still have to do more to catch-up with recent developments in the search and retrival of data, information field; big data is just one example. As for vendors, they have to pay more attention to aspects retaled to enhacing user expereicne and custome care. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since iii bought VTLS, the support is almost down to zero. I have contacted iii several times asking about migrating to one of their products from VTLS's Virtua and have never heard back. Even spoke to iii at ALA Annual....no follow up. It seems that they don't really care about VTLS customers, or maybe they just don't care about us [more likely]. Kind of sad. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Voyager

top

We do the vast amount of our own Voyager support, we rarely need to contact Ex Libris as we know more about Voyager and our own installation than most of their support staff do anymore. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Note: figure given for items in the collection represents print and av materialsat this location of [...] . There are 80K+ ebooks and other e-items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would like to migrate to a next-gen ILS, but budget restrictions make it highly unlikely this will happen in the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our ILS is deployed through the [...] consortium. We receive excellent support from [...]. Our ILS allows us to have a robust and responsive statewide resource sharing module/ [...] is looking to upgrade the consortial ILS - task force is examining options now. We pay for and maintain our own discovery layer. If [...] offers us another discovery system we will assess that, but are happy with Ebsco and its attention to details. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Current ILS is client/server and would like to migrate to a web -based system. Cost is the main issue for us that is why LibraryWorld is listed as a possible vendor. We have limited staff and IT knowledge so I don't know if open source would be possible for us. WMS is listed as a vendor simply because most of the other institutions in our consortium migrated to WMS last year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

To clarify some responses above: As to why I left the question about the ILS' effectiveness in managing our electronic resources blank, we have only 8 database subscriptions currently, so we don't really need to use the ILS to manage them. Also, we are very satisfied with the company overall and the direction they are taking their products. Unfortunately, we can no longer afford the products they offer. Finally, on the whole the customer support for Voyager is maybe slightly worse than previously, which is why I gave it a 4 (thinking a 5 rating would be "about the same"). I'm beginning to think that they're putting more resources into Alma support and taking some away from Voyager support. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ex Libris has stopped working on Voyager except basic updates. They are working on other products from takeovers/mergers. That has been very disappointing for us. EBSCO has stopped working on federated tool EHIS - they have said they can't add certain large new acquisitions (Sage journals) - and that we should get Discovery tool where it DOES work. Don't like pressure. They also have large preferred treatment for their own databases - for that reason would look elsewhere first. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our ILS has been effectively disabled for about a year and a half, which is why I can't give the vendor higher scores. They apparently failed to inform the Army powers-that-be about an update to PRIMO that involved changing it's IP and then the information security folks shut everything down. So SFX is the only thing we have that works as it is supposed to (PRIMO has limited functionality because it can't talk to Voyager), but ExLibris customer support has been very responsive to all of our other issues, and if we could approval to transition to Alma, we'd probably do it before anyone changed their mind. Given the extreme paranoia our Information Security folks seem to have about everything that isn't .mil or .gov, I doubt we'd ever get approval for open source anything. Just yesterday I had to write up a justification for why they should unblock the Directory of Open Access Journals. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Some are not satisfied with PRIMO as a discovery layer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our small institution has had considerable long-term issues with our ILS and Discovery Service vendors unwilling to cooperate with one another. The lack of cooperation extends beyond those vendors and includes the various publishers and database platforms who integrate content, usually poorly, into the Discovery Service. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The library had purchased Primo in 2015. However, Ex Libris was not able to meet the library's security needs by the deadline as stated in the contract. The contract was not reviewed after the first year and Primo was never fully implemented. Once Ex Libris has completed the FedRamp process, the library may consider purchasing Primo again. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Consortium plans to migrate to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We're currently under contract to move to EX Libris Alma/Primo, which I'm not thrilled about because of my experiences with Voyager, including their customer service. However, we're part of a large consortium, and must switch as a group. Implementation is scheduled for 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We'd be interested in an open source solution, but don't have the infrastructure or personnel to do that. Also, we are currently being forced off of our old ILS before Folio will be available. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

The ILS is overly complicated for what it needs to do. I would implement something much less complicated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We've been using Voyager almost 15 years and past couple years it has just been running on a server. We haven't had any contacts to customer support and any ILS -support issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We keep looking at the OCLC WMS product, but it would be significantly more expensive than our current Voyager so we haven't seriously considered switching. The price difference is surprising. OCLC is just pricing itself out of reach of small academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We presently have good relations with both ExLibris. We would like to see how the field of Next Generation ILS's develop before making any move. The loss of InTota phase 2 does change a bit our approach to assessing next-gen systems. Since the merger of ExLibris, it appears that former Serials Solns products don't get the same level of response by helpdesk staff. Problems persist longer before a fix is enacted. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Voyager is a legacy system, and we are ready to move to a system with modern features that will handle our e-materials better and integrate more seamlessly with discovery tools. We are waiting on funding. As soon as that is in place, the RFP process will begin. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Ex Libris caters to large institutions with large budgets. They are not good for smaller schools with fewer staff and less money. Primo or Primo Central cannot show results of just the Ebsco databases/database due to fight between Ebsco and Ex Libris. A lot of the free resources in Primo Central that offer content are half full text half not full text. If you turn it on, you get a bunch of hits that aren't actually there when you try to retrieve. Ex Libris could at least separate Primo Central content by full-text/not full-text. Support for Ex Libris products is practically non-existent for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are in the middle of migration to Alma and Primo, which we selected because that's what the [...] selected. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

All university libraries, polytechnic libraries and many special libraries (total number more than 40) are preparing the acquisition of a new ILS. The goal is to launch the new system in 2018. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Voyager is a workhorse and does the main functions of an ILS but is showing its age, and doesn't do more up to date functions for management of eresources, user experience, etc. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Although satisfied with current product, I am really looking forward to migrating to a so-called next-gen system that handles both print and e-resources effectively. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Not at all likely if we go on our own; but we are planning on consortiu, and we might consider a supported FOLIO -- however, very unlikely that they will have enough functionality anytime soon and within our timeframe (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

As need for print management continues to dwindle, the amount we're willing to pay for a system that does just print management must accordingly change. e-resource management is our number 1 priority. Bywater's hosted Koha will provide more functionality and support than our current system and vendor at less than a quarter of the cost. If FOLIO comes to fruition, it will drastically change everything about print and e-resource management allowing most libraries to spend more of our budgets on content, programs, and services instead of systems, and that's the way it should be. Companies like iii & exlibris as they're organized now won't be able to exist any longer, and that's also the way it should be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are tied to state system procurement processes and consortial decision-making in order to migrate to a new system. We woefully need to migrate to a new system and it is taking a very long time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are in the process of transitioning to ALMA with he [...]. Projected to go live in May 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

I listed the vendor products we reviewed. We selected Ex Libris Alma/Primo and will migrate Summer 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

All contracts and customer service requests are handled by our consortium, [...]. Some questions above may not be applicable for our library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We would very much like to implement a discovery layer, but as a very small (600 FTE), tuition-driven liberal arts college, we simply don't have the funds to do so at this time. We have been a Voyager library since 1998 and have looked in to WorldShare Management, but even accounting for some discounting for size, the switch to a different ILS is cost prohibitive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are currently using Summon as our discovery service. If Summon doesn't work well after we move over to Alma, the library will consider Primo as a replacement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are long overdue to upgrade to a new ILS, but lack of funding is a problem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are currently compiling a specification for our ideal ILS, not because we are definitely thinking of changing, but because our current ILS was installed in 1998 and it seems like good practice to review our requirements at this time (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The answer to the open source question is a reflection on the state of readiness of the main open source LSP on the market (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Or Alma migration is on schedule for May 2017 go-live. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have Voyager 9.1.1 via our consortium. It's a "dead" legacy product; rarely significantly updated and has few new features or improvements. It is what it is. Given our state's higher ed (and general statewide) budgetary problems, it's also all we'll have for the foreseeable future. Sad times for our statewide consortium, public universities & libraries. Our library has purchased zero (literally) books with appropriated funds during the last 3 years (have spent maybe $20k on monographs from other available funds --- not even treading water on Ref titles), so not sure how much a substandard (or shiny new) ILS matters at this point. We are plowing available money to maintain full-text aggregated db subscriptions; cancelling many journals. Our students, citizens and taxpayers are the losers. Oh well, we'll dutifully and responsibly continue warehousing our old "stuff" as the world marches on... (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Ex Libris implemented our current ILS on schedule according to the terms of our contract, but incompletely and not without a measure of drama. We have found support to be lacking, and are currently in the midst of renegotiations. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

During our time using Voyager, we have directed our ILS support issues to the largest library in our consortium; therefore, it is difficult to answer your question about satisfaction with Ex Libris support services because we typically have not dealt directly with Ex Libris on the Voyager product. I rated our customer support in the last year as a bit lower because during implementation of our new system (Alma and Primo) recently, there has been some confusion within Ex Libris about authentication processes. They changed their policy on authentication prior to working out the technical and customer service implications of this policy change. This disappointed us. Voyager has been a stable product and served us well for roughly 18 years, but it is time for us to advance to a product that manages electronic resources and that has stronger reporting functions. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Anuual circulation of tangible items 5,500 per calendar year as of 2016. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Your form lists Clarion University's current automation system as being Alma/Primo. That is not actually the case. We[...] are emgaged in the migration process, we expect to go live in April/May 2017. While the migration process has gone well, my hat is off to Ex Libris regarding the process and support system they have developed and use to facilitate migration, I can't answer most of your questions from the Alma/Primo perspective. Hence, I have changed the form to reflect what we are currently using, Voyager / EBSCO Discovery. Also, collection count only reflects physical items. E-books adds another 184,427 as of June 2016. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

The institution has just announced that has chosen Symphony from SirsiDynix to provide a collaborative platform along with the [...]. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

[...] (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


VUBIS

top

Currently changing to new ILS (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)


Vubis Smart

top

Dans quel(s) domaine(s) votre bibliothèque rencontre-t-elle le plus de problèmes avec ce SIGB et sa maintenance? [...] Corporate IT services (they control the system (back end and finances) and refuse to consider improvement and upgrades even minor ones). (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our research centre uses Vubis for both the library and the archives, and generally find it quite good for both the staff and user experience. The archives find it works quite well for them, and the library has had good experience with Infor being responsive and accommodating to the library's needs. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Winisis

top

This is great library giving service only to priests because it depends on the Catholic Church (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The product is good, but needs more new feature and updates. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Winnebago Spectrum

top

none at this time (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)


WorldShare Management Services

top

The major problem with the vendor is the enormous amount of documentation that needs to be checked. With the ILS, the major weakness is the reserve module, rather ineffective for managing print materials: creating pull lists is very cumbersome. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We purchased WMS Discovery. We also joined Navigator, the shared catalog product. Though they are both owned by OCLC they are not compatible - something we were NOT told at time of purchase. Further, we purchased the enhanced analytics system, but recently learned they FORGOT to install it. This was not evident because the options controlled by that system were simply invisible. We received a refund for one year of the purchase price of this product last week. Our director, who only uses the public interface, really likes the catalog. The rest of us HATE it. It lacks simple functionality in several areas, is not intuitive for users, has serious ranking and display issues, and about the only good things we can say are that it looks pretty and is cloud based, thus eliminating the need for backups. We also experience downtime nearly once a week. There has been more downtime with this product (even over the first month) than we experienced in the 22 years we were with our former ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I like being part of a membership-driven, non-profit corporation for a library system. It has to be beholden to its members, and wants to be. This system is a lot less work to operate, and provides greater opportunities for discovery of resources and the management of resources. Overall, it is far less expensive than systems with similar features, we are saving quite a bit over what we used to expend on our previous system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Number of items includes electronic resources that we don't own but to which we subscribe. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Migrating to WMS effective December 2016 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

WMS catalog and patron interface are very good, circulation is decent, but acquisition still lags in terms of defaults and workflow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

WMS best quality and potential is more connection between tasks and functions, e.g., cataloging done at acquisitions, item additions or deletions are immediately reflected in various OCLC products, etc. However, adding print periodicals to the discovery knowledge base can be an arduous task. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The online catalog is cumbersome to use (with the Discovery Platform) and requires many extra steps for users to retrieve information. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

OCLC promises a lot but is slow to deliver. And they over promised features during the sales pitch that weren't ready when we were told they would be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We really like most of WorldShare Library System -- except Discovery. It really needs improvement, and we appreciate that OCLC is working hard on that. We also appreciate the work on the Acquisitions module. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

WorldCat provides open access to a number of collections available on the internet. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We use OCLC WMS with WorldCat Discovery. We find OCLC to be very responsive when we have questions and problems. They respond to feedback from the user community and genuinely seem to care about the needs of their customers. While we would like some teaks made to the Discovery interface and to WMS, it meets our needs and we are happy with it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We stand on precipice of implementing the new OCLC "Discovery" system trembling in eager excitement.... (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

40,000 print (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is possible that our consortium will make a statewide ILS decision within the next 24 months. Should that occur and it is different from the one we now host, we would defer to the consortium's choice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The development of WMS has been slow and often frustrating. We receive many complaints about WorldCat Discovery. We we bring these to OCLC, all too often the answer is that they are working on it but have no date for implementing a solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC (not unlike most if not all vendors in this space) seems to be significantly behind in the development of products that fully address the needs of libraries. In OCLC's case they are fairly new to the type of development that is required for their ILS product. They seem to have been largely a service oriented company with a very narrow scope of service, and are now trying to build the Swiss Army Knife of ILS's similar to others. While OCLC has what I percieve as one of the best integrations of service and development, their development side is fairly young and under-resourced. They also don't seem to have a unified vision in their development, suffering the same problem that libraries are in transitioning from siloed functions to the intergated and work flow processes that require high quality and constant communication between divisions of development. They have also suffered, in some cases, the launch of a product before it is actually ready for live use. Their attempt to rely on crowd-sourced developed solutions has not panned out as well as I expect they thought it would, largely due to the overworked nature of most budding developers in libraries. Most libraries just don't have the personel free to do more than duct-tape and bailing wire development. Librarians are not developers for the most part, so the idea of an open-source-like community is not as effective. The community of those type of librarians is too small to be of significant quality impact. They charge significantly less than other vendors as I understand it. Maybe they should increase the price incrementally to help resource the development of the product with the right people and technology integration. Lastly, they have had significant turn-over in the last two years, making it hard to believe that there is a solid and consistent vision being developed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been extremely satisfied with WMS. It is a huge improvement in terms of functionality from our old ILS. We talked to a few WMS libraries prior to implementation who had significant complaints about the system, but we simply have not encountered any of those issues. The migration and implementation went off without a hitch and both staff and patrons have been very happy with the change. There has definitely been a learning curve, particularly with Acquisitions; and our acquisitions and cataloging workflow underwent a total change, but the effect has been a more streamlined and efficient process resulting in materials getting onto the shelf more than twice as fast as before. I'm sure as we continue to learn the system we will find some challenges to overcome, but thus far we are pleased the WMS product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

It's very difficult to get a usable report from WMS, so my guess at collection size is just that: a wild guess. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Good riddance to iii's Millennium. It feels like we're in the 21st century now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Many enhancements are still needed to make this a competitive ILS. The pricing may be competitive, but the cost in staff time should be considered as it increases considerably in all areas from circulation to technical services where automated processes in the past must now be completed in manual procedures or work-a-rounds. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

WMS is not as mature a product as we would have liked for a comprehensive mid-size university library. The Discovery search is still in Beta and does not meet the needs of the majority of our users which are undergraduates. The reporting options (Report Authoring) is the best I've seen in any system, is robust and easy-to-use but comes as an extra cost. Being based on WorldCat has had its advantages (access to worldwide holdings, helps our patron-drive acquisitions approach) as well as its issues (trying to overcome that massive amount of holdings to find relevant items). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC documentation is incomplete, irrelevant, long-winded and too technical, there is not currently any way to add bulk records for electronic resources or reliably and quickly see results for new collections through the discovery layer. Therefore, as most of our resources are not available in the Worldcat catalogue and cannot be added. There are dozens of overlapping platforms, add-ins and tools all requiring different logins. Electronic holdings are attached to print records as 'additional editions' effectively rendering them invisible to users. Support responses are slow. Would not attempt to install and run an open source ILS without in-house coding skills and hosted options might be expensive. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

While we're still smoothing out some rough edges with how our new ILS interoperates with our RFID equipment and suppliers of electronic resources, etc, and some features are not yet as developed as we'd like (e.g. reporting and print notifications), we are nonetheless happy with our new ILS, and it represents a quantum leap from our old ILS. In particular, having a cloud-based, multi-tenanted architecture means that we enjoy regular incremental updates in a way which is pain-free, which was unimaginable with our old system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The print holding are 77,000. ebooks holding are 185,000. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Library collection number includes all formats (print, electronic, micro etc...) (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have just migrated to Worldshare in 2015 and there is WorldCat Diiscovery included in our migration (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC WMS requires very little maintenance on the part of our library which frees up our time to focus on other projects such as enterprise data governance and metadata management for our organization's KM initiatives. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Figure for items in the library's collection is for total catalogued print stock only including journal titles but not holdings. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC WorldShare Management Service has been cost effective for our institution based on our current budget. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We've been pleased with improvements to the acquisitions module of WMS in the past year. Our feedback has been responded to in many areas. Downtime is still an issue, particularly with the public catalogue and e-resource linking. With a hosted catalogue it is difficult to identify where problems are occurring. After hours support has not been as good as hoped. This has improved recently. We are still waiting on some critical reporting functions for acquisitions. Reporting for circulation and collections has improved considerably over the past few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

A year ago, we were planning on migrating to Alma as part of the CLIC consortium, but since then we have left CLIC and started migrating to OCLC WMS. We will be done with the migration in February, 2017. Because of this, I've provided neutral answers to the survey this year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Overall, we're satisfied with our product (WMS) as it has allowed us to better balance technical responsibilities with public service. However, there are outstanding issues, as with all vendors. One being a more strategic question...occasionally there arises underdeveloped functionality which should be more fully tested before going to production. To me, this signals a priority of meeting deadlines rather than developing an optimal product. An unfortunate effect of this is that at the user level, underdeveloped functionality can undermine confidence in the product by the average user, which can be extended to the library as well. That being said, we are seeing incremental progress in our ILS and it has benefited our staff and our users since implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Note about items: This year's figure includes our DDA ebook collection and our DDA streaming video collection, since these items are represented in our ILS. (Previous years' totals did not include these DDA collections.) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We migrated to WorldShare in November 2016, OCLC have been totally fantastic to work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

So far OCLC has been good, but we are still considered in migration mode so are receiving support from an individual who was responsible for our migration. We have been fairly satisfied with their support for products we already have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We switched to OCLC WMS and the product was new and not fully developed. We have been with OCLC for several years now and the development of the backend systems is not where I would like it to be. Overall the ILS is functional and get the job done but the reporting and customer service this year leave room for improvement. We switched to EDS and will go live in 2017 with that discovery layer. This was prompted by a change in leadership. We are also considering other ILS systems namely Innovative and waiting for the development of an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We had a difficult time with our migration - adequate time and planning is a *must* if you are considering it. Unhappiness with our current system may lead us to move again with end of contract. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

When we first installed Worldshare, it lacked expected functionality. However, it has greatly improved over the past few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have only had our new system live since late November 2016 and we are still "moving in" so to speak. Our difficulty with Vendor support stems from the fact that we are the first Tertiary Library in [...] to purchase this product and the [...] support Office of OCLC is still in development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have spent the past 8 months migrating from III Sierra and Encore Duet to OCLC WMS and Worldshare. We are much happier with the new ILS and the support we receive from OCLC than were were from III. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)