Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Alma


2017 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction180 3 4 7 12 33 81 33 7 76.667
ILS Functionality179 2 2 5 10 30 77 47 6 76.877
Print Functionality180 1 4 5 12 20 69 55 14 77.027
Electronic Functionality180 1 2 5 3 14 43 53 48 11 76.747
Company Satisfaction179 1 3 2 8 24 28 56 42 15 76.657
Support Satisfaction178 5 2 4 14 29 38 48 29 9 76.176
Support Improvement175 3 3 8 21 61 24 24 15 16 55.705
Company Loyalty177 4 3 3 3 10 16 19 42 36 41 76.807
Open Source Interest178 68 30 28 18 14 9 6 3 1 1 01.771

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS185 21.08%
Considering new Interface185 31.62%
System Installed on time?185 17292.97%

Average Collection size: 1223862

TypeCount
Public0
Academic159
School0
Consortium3
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00028
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00063
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00057
[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.

AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1586.53 306.37546.59456.6900004
ILSFunctionality1586.70 306.53546.87456.7300004
PrintFunctionality1586.85 306.90546.87456.9300004
ElectronicFunctionality1546.78 296.48536.98456.7600004
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1576.27 306.03536.45456.4900004
CompanyLoyalty1566.88 286.29547.04457.2400004



2016 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction158 2 2 2 3 5 18 28 55 33 10 76.537
ILS Functionality158 1 1 1 7 7 12 22 52 44 11 76.707
Print Functionality158 1 1 1 4 7 13 24 42 48 17 86.857
Electronic Functionality154 3 1 2 9 12 28 37 44 18 86.787
Company Satisfaction158 3 1 2 7 8 15 28 42 38 14 76.497
Support Satisfaction157 2 2 4 10 10 13 27 46 32 11 76.277
Support Improvement153 1 2 5 5 17 45 21 24 17 16 55.846
Company Loyalty156 4 3 1 2 8 16 15 35 32 40 96.887
Open Source Interest156 72 29 24 9 9 8 1 3 1 01.381

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS162 42.47%
Considering new Interface162 42.47%
System Installed on time?162 15193.21%

Average Collection size: 1385315

TypeCount
Public0
Academic138
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00050
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 1 1 4 3 9 22 26 21 76.377
ILS Functionality87 1 2 2 3 9 23 29 17 1 76.377
Print Functionality86 1 1 1 4 6 17 28 22 6 76.747
Electronic Functionality86 1 2 2 3 18 30 22 8 76.887
Company Satisfaction87 1 1 1 3 1 12 15 23 22 8 76.617
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 3 2 5 15 11 28 14 7 76.267
Support Improvement84 2 2 1 10 20 10 15 16 8 56.066
Company Loyalty83 1 2 3 6 6 5 20 21 19 86.947
Open Source Interest85 32 17 14 7 5 3 3 4 01.731

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS88 22.27%
Considering new Interface88 11.14%
System Installed on time?88 8090.91%

Average Collection size: 1924546

TypeCount
Public0
Academic74
School0
Consortium2
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00032
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00033
[6] over 10,000,0012



2014 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 2 1 1 4 11 17 10 76.437
ILS Functionality46 1 1 3 6 17 13 4 1 66.096
Print Functionality46 1 3 4 14 9 13 2 66.597
Electronic Functionality46 1 1 1 4 12 10 14 3 86.747
Company Satisfaction46 2 1 3 2 5 19 9 5 76.677
Support Satisfaction46 1 2 1 4 11 20 5 2 76.337
Support Improvement44 1 2 1 4 9 8 5 9 5 56.096
Company Loyalty45 1 1 2 6 2 11 13 9 86.967
Open Source Interest44 18 7 11 2 3 3 01.411

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 24.35%
Considering new Interface46 12.17%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 2463832

TypeCount
Public0
Academic40
School0
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00016
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction15 1 1 2 1 6 4 76.207
ILS Functionality15 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 65.336
Print Functionality15 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 86.407
Electronic Functionality15 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.007
Company Satisfaction15 1 1 1 7 3 2 76.807
Support Satisfaction15 1 3 1 5 4 1 76.737
Support Improvement15 1 5 1 4 4 56.337
Company Loyalty16 1 1 4 6 4 87.318
Open Source Interest17 9 2 1 1 3 1 01.880

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS18 316.67%
Considering new Interface18 15.56%
System Installed on time?18 1794.44%

Average Collection size: 1468604

TypeCount
Public0
Academic16
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 2 2 1 44.864
ILS Functionality7 1 1 1 1 3 74.865
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 1 2 2 87.148
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.147
Support Improvement7 1 1 2 2 1 76.867
Company Loyalty7 2 1 4 96.439
Open Source Interest7 3 1 1 1 1 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 225.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 1033620

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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


1 Responses for Alma in 2011

0 Responses for Alma in 2010

0 Responses for Alma in 2009

0 Responses for Alma in 2008

0 Responses for Alma in 2007

2017 : gen: 6.66 company 6.65 loyalty 6.80 support 6.17

2016 : gen: 6.53 company 6.49 loyalty 6.88 support 6.27

2015 : gen: 6.37 company 6.61 loyalty 6.94 support 6.26

2014 : gen: 6.43 company 6.67 loyalty 6.96 support 6.33

2013 : gen: 6.20 company 6.80 loyalty 7.31 support 6.73

2012 : gen: 4.86 company 7.14 loyalty 6.43 support 6.14

Comments

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)

ILS