Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for EOS.Web


2017 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction9 1 4 3 1 77.447
ILS Functionality10 3 1 6 87.308
Print Functionality10 2 5 3 87.908
Electronic Functionality10 3 4 1 2 66.506
Company Satisfaction10 1 2 5 2 87.808
Support Satisfaction10 1 3 6 98.309
Support Improvement10 4 1 4 1 56.207
Company Loyalty9 1 1 2 2 3 97.118
Open Source Interest10 7 1 1 1 01.800

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 00.00%
Considering new Interface10 330.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 59031

TypeCount
Public0
Academic2
School0
Consortium0
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0006
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[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.

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



2016 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction32 1 2 1 1 4 7 12 4 86.848
ILS Functionality32 1 1 1 1 3 3 9 8 5 76.637
Print Functionality31 1 1 3 2 7 11 6 87.168
Electronic Functionality30 2 2 1 2 1 2 5 5 6 4 85.777
Company Satisfaction32 1 1 2 3 3 4 11 7 87.038
Support Satisfaction32 1 1 4 2 4 6 14 97.538
Support Improvement31 1 3 10 3 4 4 6 56.326
Company Loyalty32 3 1 1 2 4 5 8 8 86.568
Open Source Interest31 12 4 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 02.681

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 618.75%
Considering new Interface32 39.38%
System Installed on time?32 2681.25%

Average Collection size: 79775

TypeCount
Public1
Academic8
School0
Consortium0
Special7

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction33 1 1 4 4 6 8 9 97.218
ILS Functionality33 1 2 3 2 8 8 9 97.218
Print Functionality33 1 2 3 8 7 12 97.648
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 8 6 4 75.977
Company Satisfaction33 1 2 6 3 12 9 87.488
Support Satisfaction33 1 6 4 3 19 98.009
Support Improvement31 1 1 8 3 4 5 9 96.907
Company Loyalty33 1 4 5 4 5 14 97.398
Open Source Interest33 10 5 3 2 4 4 2 1 1 1 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 410.81%
Considering new Interface37 513.51%
System Installed on time?37 3286.49%

Average Collection size: 65164

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 2 3 9 11 11 7 76.877
ILS Functionality45 2 3 1 8 10 14 7 87.027
Print Functionality45 1 2 2 5 5 14 16 97.588
Electronic Functionality42 2 2 4 2 1 3 7 11 2 8 75.767
Company Satisfaction43 1 2 3 4 5 13 15 97.408
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 4 7 7 22 97.608
Support Improvement45 1 1 1 6 12 6 6 2 10 56.076
Company Loyalty45 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 5 8 16 96.518
Open Source Interest45 20 8 1 1 3 6 2 1 3 02.241

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 919.57%
Considering new Interface46 715.22%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 67977

TypeCount
Public1
Academic10
School1
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00027
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction39 1 1 1 3 5 10 8 10 77.107
ILS Functionality38 1 2 6 3 6 10 10 87.088
Print Functionality39 3 2 4 7 7 16 97.568
Electronic Functionality36 1 1 1 1 2 4 7 6 8 5 86.317
Company Satisfaction39 2 1 2 10 10 14 97.548
Support Satisfaction39 1 1 2 1 3 10 21 97.909
Support Improvement39 1 4 8 1 9 5 11 96.777
Company Loyalty38 3 2 1 2 5 9 16 97.268
Open Source Interest39 15 5 5 5 3 1 3 1 1 02.051

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS39 615.38%
Considering new Interface39 820.51%
System Installed on time?39 3897.44%

Average Collection size: 64333

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School1
Consortium0
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction37 1 3 6 15 8 4 76.957
ILS Functionality37 1 2 3 5 11 12 3 86.897
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction37 3 1 7 3 15 8 87.198
Support Satisfaction37 2 7 10 18 97.978
Support Improvement35 2 13 2 4 7 7 56.637
Company Loyalty37 2 1 2 2 1 7 8 14 97.148
Open Source Interest36 19 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 01.780

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 513.51%
Considering new Interface37 38.11%
System Installed on time?37 3594.59%

Average Collection size: 65360

TypeCount
Public1
Academic5
School2
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction20 1 4 10 5 87.958
ILS Functionality20 1 2 7 6 4 77.508
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction20 2 13 5 88.158
Support Satisfaction20 3 7 10 98.359
Support Improvement20 6 3 5 2 4 56.757
Company Loyalty20 1 1 6 12 98.359
Open Source Interest20 11 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 01.650

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS20 15.00%
Considering new Interface20 00.00%
System Installed on time?20 1995.00%

Average Collection size: 34479

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00012
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.888
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.758
Support Satisfaction8 1 1 5 1 86.888
Support Improvement8 1 2 1 1 2 1 56.137
Company Loyalty8 1 1 1 3 2 86.638
Open Source Interest8 2 2 2 1 1 02.502

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 00.00%
Considering new Interface8 00.00%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 45095

TypeCount
Public0
Academic1
School0
Consortium0
Special1

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


4 Responses for EOS.Web in 2009


2008 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 2 3 98.008
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.717
Open Source Interest7 1 2 2 1 1 23.293

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 00.00%
Considering new Interface7 00.00%
System Installed on time?7 7100.00%




3 Responses for EOS.Web in 2007

2017 : gen: 7.44 company 7.80 loyalty 7.11 support 8.30

2016 : gen: 6.84 company 7.03 loyalty 6.56 support 7.53

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.48 loyalty 7.39 support 8.00

2014 : gen: 6.87 company 7.40 loyalty 6.51 support 7.60

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.54 loyalty 7.26 support 7.90

2012 : gen: 6.95 company 7.19 loyalty 7.14 support 7.97

2011 : gen: 7.95 company 8.15 loyalty 8.35 support 8.35

2010 : gen: 6.88 company 6.75 loyalty 6.63 support 6.88

2008 : gen: 7.71 company 7.71 loyalty 6.71 support 8.00

Comments

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)

ILS