Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for AGent VERSO


2017 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction42 1 2 3 8 19 9 87.608
ILS Functionality42 1 1 3 5 8 17 7 87.268
Print Functionality40 3 2 7 18 10 87.758
Electronic Functionality41 1 2 2 5 8 6 12 5 86.637
Company Satisfaction42 1 2 12 14 13 87.718
Support Satisfaction42 1 2 1 8 12 18 97.958
Support Improvement41 1 9 4 6 7 14 97.248
Company Loyalty41 1 2 2 3 5 13 15 97.568
Open Source Interest42 16 6 4 2 6 2 3 1 1 1 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS42 37.14%
Considering new Interface42 00.00%
System Installed on time?42 3685.71%

Average Collection size: 54615

TypeCount
Public25
Academic10
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00032
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2016 results according to the type and size of the library.

AGent VERSOallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS896.88 116.1800766.960001
ILSFunctionality886.89 116.0000757.000001
PrintFunctionality876.99 116.4500747.050001
ElectronicFunctionality756.15 104.2000636.440001
SatisfactionCustomerSupport877.62 116.8200747.770001
CompanyLoyalty886.81 115.6400756.950001



2016 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction89 3 2 3 8 10 27 25 11 76.887
ILS Functionality88 1 3 4 10 12 15 35 8 86.897
Print Functionality87 1 1 2 3 6 11 25 25 13 76.997
Electronic Functionality75 3 2 2 3 6 8 9 18 14 10 76.157
Company Satisfaction88 1 2 4 5 10 13 37 16 87.278
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 6 8 13 32 26 87.628
Support Improvement86 1 7 12 11 24 15 16 76.847
Company Loyalty88 4 2 4 8 9 17 28 16 86.818
Open Source Interest85 24 10 22 6 6 7 5 3 2 02.332

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS90 44.44%
Considering new Interface90 22.22%
System Installed on time?90 8291.11%

Average Collection size: 39853

TypeCount
Public77
Academic11
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,00069
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction131 2 2 6 15 15 37 36 18 76.937
ILS Functionality130 2 2 7 13 16 45 32 13 76.827
Print Functionality128 1 1 1 8 2 15 42 43 15 87.117
Electronic Functionality108 1 1 3 6 7 8 14 32 25 11 76.487
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 2 2 11 10 39 41 23 87.227
Support Satisfaction130 1 2 4 3 12 28 40 40 87.588
Support Improvement125 1 7 35 10 18 30 24 56.777
Company Loyalty127 6 3 8 15 20 25 28 22 86.567
Open Source Interest122 36 9 24 6 16 15 5 6 4 1 02.682

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS136 128.82%
Considering new Interface136 32.21%
System Installed on time?136 12591.91%

Average Collection size: 38377

TypeCount
Public119
Academic12
School0
Consortium2
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000106
[3] 100,001-250,0008
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction53 2 2 2 2 7 8 11 11 8 76.267
ILS Functionality54 1 4 2 1 5 6 9 19 7 86.637
Print Functionality55 1 1 2 6 4 6 18 12 5 76.477
Electronic Functionality47 3 1 3 1 7 9 4 10 5 4 75.385
Company Satisfaction54 2 3 2 3 9 18 10 7 76.567
Support Satisfaction55 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 10 21 11 87.048
Support Improvement53 3 2 1 2 11 1 8 18 7 86.457
Company Loyalty54 4 1 2 2 3 2 9 2 17 12 86.398
Open Source Interest52 14 6 12 1 9 5 3 1 1 02.482

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS58 813.79%
Considering new Interface58 46.90%
System Installed on time?58 5594.83%

Average Collection size: 47480

TypeCount
Public49
Academic7
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction68 5 2 2 6 4 18 19 12 86.627
ILS Functionality68 3 1 1 5 6 4 19 18 11 76.687
Print Functionality68 4 2 1 1 1 2 6 14 22 15 86.858
Electronic Functionality63 3 2 2 3 6 7 6 13 11 10 76.027
Company Satisfaction68 5 1 1 1 1 4 3 16 15 21 96.908
Support Satisfaction68 4 1 3 1 3 2 11 17 26 97.198
Support Improvement64 4 7 18 2 11 8 14 56.207
Company Loyalty67 5 3 2 2 4 4 5 12 12 18 96.287
Open Source Interest66 24 11 5 1 7 10 3 4 1 02.381

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS68 710.29%
Considering new Interface68 22.94%
System Installed on time?68 6697.06%

Average Collection size: 42911

TypeCount
Public57
Academic8
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction74 2 1 3 1 5 15 31 16 87.328
ILS Functionality76 2 3 3 2 1 4 18 29 14 87.058
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction76 1 1 1 1 1 4 15 24 28 97.688
Support Satisfaction76 1 1 3 1 4 11 18 37 97.808
Support Improvement75 1 1 2 9 14 3 7 16 22 96.768
Company Loyalty76 5 1 1 2 4 4 8 22 29 97.248
Open Source Interest70 22 8 14 4 7 7 5 3 02.312

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS79 67.59%
Considering new Interface79 33.80%
System Installed on time?79 7189.87%

Average Collection size: 64695

TypeCount
Public61
Academic14
School1
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction67 1 1 2 6 12 21 24 97.728
ILS Functionality67 2 3 7 16 22 17 87.498
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction67 1 1 7 5 23 30 98.048
Support Satisfaction67 1 1 1 2 1 19 42 98.349
Support Improvement66 1 1 9 8 5 13 29 97.538
Company Loyalty66 2 1 1 3 3 8 18 30 97.708
Open Source Interest66 18 12 7 4 9 8 4 3 1 02.592

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS67 34.48%
Considering new Interface67 00.00%
System Installed on time?67 6597.01%

Average Collection size: 40971

TypeCount
Public50
Academic13
School2
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 3 7 27 17 16 77.407
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction72 5 4 19 16 28 97.818
Support Satisfaction72 1 2 3 19 12 35 97.998
Support Improvement71 16 15 4 5 8 23 96.617
Company Loyalty72 3 5 2 5 24 33 97.968
Open Source Interest71 20 7 20 6 2 11 4 1 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS73 45.48%
Considering new Interface73 00.00%
System Installed on time?73 7197.26%

Average Collection size: 31725

TypeCount
Public59
Academic11
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 1 5 16 27 21 87.838
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 2 5 19 42 98.319
Support Satisfaction70 1 1 1 8 15 44 98.349
Support Improvement64 2 7 2 10 10 33 97.759
Company Loyalty71 1 1 1 9 9 50 98.459
Open Source Interest71 29 9 12 1 5 8 2 3 1 1 02.061

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS72 11.39%
Considering new Interface72 11.39%
System Installed on time?72 6894.44%





2008 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction81 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 17 25 24 87.268
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction81 2 2 3 3 2 12 20 37 97.688
Support Satisfaction81 2 1 2 1 2 3 11 15 44 97.819
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty81 3 2 4 3 10 18 41 97.639
Open Source Interest81 30 6 6 8 8 11 5 4 1 2 02.632

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS83 44.82%
Considering new Interface83 00.00%
System Installed on time?83 8096.39%





2007 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction18 1 2 2 5 5 3 76.897
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 5 8 7 87.338
Support Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 4 8 8 87.468
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty24 3 2 1 3 8 7 86.588
Open Source Interest24 7 2 1 3 3 4 2 1 1 03.083

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS24 416.67%
Considering new Interface24 14.17%
System Installed on time?24 14.17%




2017 : gen: 7.60 company 7.71 loyalty 7.56 support 7.95

2016 : gen: 6.88 company 7.27 loyalty 6.81 support 7.62

2015 : gen: 6.93 company 7.22 loyalty 6.56 support 7.58

2014 : gen: 6.26 company 6.56 loyalty 6.39 support 7.04

2013 : gen: 6.62 company 6.90 loyalty 6.28 support 7.19

2012 : gen: 7.32 company 7.68 loyalty 7.24 support 7.80

2011 : gen: 7.72 company 8.04 loyalty 7.70 support 8.34

2010 : gen: 7.40 company 7.81 loyalty 7.96 support 7.99

2009 : gen: 7.83 company 8.31 loyalty 8.45 support 8.34

2008 : gen: 7.26 company 7.68 loyalty 7.63 support 7.81

2007 : gen: 6.89 company 7.33 loyalty 6.58 support 7.46

Comments

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)

ILS