Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Evergreen


2017 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 1 1 1 5 16 32 28 18 77.257
ILS Functionality102 3 2 10 12 36 23 16 77.057
Print Functionality102 1 1 2 11 30 33 24 87.578
Electronic Functionality100 1 3 4 4 4 12 16 30 19 7 76.207
Company Satisfaction98 1 2 5 8 6 19 22 35 97.438
Support Satisfaction96 1 3 4 4 7 15 27 35 97.558
Support Improvement96 1 1 6 26 5 11 25 21 56.827
Company Loyalty92 6 4 2 7 9 10 19 35 97.028
Open Source Interest89 6 2 2 2 8 4 2 3 6 54 97.099

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS102 54.90%
Considering new Interface102 109.80%
System Installed on time?102 9189.22%

Average Collection size: 601953

TypeCount
Public67
Academic9
School1
Consortium13
Special0

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

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



2016 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction114 1 1 5 7 17 23 39 21 87.228
ILS Functionality113 1 8 4 16 30 34 20 87.197
Print Functionality112 1 1 4 6 12 22 38 28 87.428
Electronic Functionality112 2 1 5 3 6 16 19 24 26 10 86.297
Company Satisfaction113 2 1 4 8 11 19 32 36 97.408
Support Satisfaction111 3 2 3 8 10 14 26 45 97.478
Support Improvement109 3 2 29 8 11 23 33 96.968
Company Loyalty104 7 2 2 2 1 9 6 11 19 45 97.038
Open Source Interest105 15 2 1 3 5 2 4 5 8 60 96.729

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 65.17%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 10691.38%

Average Collection size: 340121

TypeCount
Public88
Academic13
School1
Consortium8
Special3

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



2015 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction111 2 3 3 4 17 30 32 20 87.137
ILS Functionality110 2 2 6 4 13 33 31 19 77.117
Print Functionality111 1 4 4 15 19 36 32 87.548
Electronic Functionality105 4 1 4 6 8 12 10 25 23 12 76.157
Company Satisfaction107 2 1 1 3 4 6 8 18 28 36 97.298
Support Satisfaction106 4 1 4 4 4 6 10 29 44 97.398
Support Improvement106 4 7 29 7 11 20 28 56.647
Company Loyalty103 3 2 3 1 3 9 7 11 27 37 97.158
Open Source Interest96 10 6 3 6 2 1 3 1 64 96.849

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 54.31%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 9985.34%

Average Collection size: 182296

TypeCount
Public96
Academic10
School0
Consortium4
Special2

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



2014 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction91 2 2 7 6 16 23 23 12 76.787
ILS Functionality91 2 4 6 9 11 26 26 7 76.647
Print Functionality89 1 5 7 4 25 30 17 87.298
Electronic Functionality89 3 3 4 14 12 19 16 10 8 65.756
Company Satisfaction89 2 2 3 9 12 17 22 22 87.107
Support Satisfaction89 2 1 6 6 11 19 22 22 87.127
Support Improvement89 1 1 6 25 12 14 11 19 56.526
Company Loyalty85 4 1 2 1 5 12 9 10 17 24 96.647
Open Source Interest79 8 1 2 1 3 3 4 3 5 49 97.109

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 22.15%
Considering new Interface93 88.60%
System Installed on time?93 8086.02%

Average Collection size: 203683

TypeCount
Public77
Academic6
School0
Consortium5
Special2

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



2013 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 4 3 2 9 20 18 14 76.977
ILS Functionality71 2 3 2 1 3 10 17 20 13 86.897
Print Functionality71 1 1 1 3 2 6 16 26 15 87.318
Electronic Functionality70 5 1 3 6 3 14 4 20 8 6 75.566
Company Satisfaction70 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 14 23 19 87.268
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 1 1 3 6 4 13 19 19 87.158
Support Improvement69 2 1 2 9 7 16 17 15 86.967
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 3 6 1 11 16 23 97.088
Open Source Interest58 7 1 3 2 1 2 6 36 97.169

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS71 22.82%
Considering new Interface71 34.23%
System Installed on time?71 6185.92%

Average Collection size: 211418

TypeCount
Public57
Academic7
School0
Consortium4
Special1

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 10 2 4 3 12 9 31 25 10 76.227
ILS Functionality106 2 5 15 8 15 31 22 8 76.277
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction104 2 2 3 12 9 9 23 22 22 76.707
Support Satisfaction103 1 1 4 3 12 6 10 21 19 26 96.697
Support Improvement102 2 2 2 10 25 12 11 24 14 56.256
Company Loyalty101 6 2 1 2 10 6 5 19 26 24 86.607
Open Source Interest89 9 2 1 1 2 1 4 7 62 97.489

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS111 21.80%
Considering new Interface111 65.41%
System Installed on time?111 9181.98%

Average Collection size: 964406

TypeCount
Public96
Academic3
School1
Consortium7
Special2

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



2011 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction60 1 1 1 4 2 12 23 9 7 76.627
ILS Functionality59 1 1 2 3 4 11 22 10 5 76.427
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction60 2 3 2 4 5 6 24 14 87.128
Support Satisfaction59 2 1 3 5 9 5 19 15 87.058
Support Improvement57 2 1 1 18 6 6 14 9 56.467
Company Loyalty58 6 2 1 2 4 4 5 9 25 96.748
Open Source Interest47 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 34 97.779

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS62 11.61%
Considering new Interface62 34.84%
System Installed on time?62 5182.26%

Average Collection size: 118879

TypeCount
Public53
Academic5
School1
Consortium2
Special1

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



2010 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 1 2 8 4 16 7 8 76.837
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction45 2 1 2 2 2 7 12 8 9 76.587
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 3 1 5 3 11 8 9 76.297
Support Improvement45 3 1 1 8 8 1 9 9 5 75.827
Company Loyalty44 2 1 2 2 6 2 6 9 14 96.778
Open Source Interest42 1 1 1 2 37 98.319

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS47 12.13%
Considering new Interface47 714.89%
System Installed on time?47 4187.23%

Average Collection size: 178623

TypeCount
Public41
Academic3
School0
Consortium2
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0008
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction50 1 11 5 21 6 6 76.727
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction50 2 1 1 13 1 15 10 7 76.607
Support Satisfaction49 2 2 13 2 15 7 8 76.457
Support Improvement48 3 3 12 6 2 16 6 86.467
Company Loyalty50 1 1 1 14 1 8 11 13 56.827
Open Source Interest44 1 1 1 1 40 98.439

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS51 11.96%
Considering new Interface51 611.76%
System Installed on time?51 4078.43%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction13 1 2 4 4 2 77.087
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction13 1 1 7 1 3 77.157
Support Satisfaction13 1 2 3 2 5 97.007
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty13 2 1 2 3 5 97.628
Open Source Interest10 10 99.009

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS13 17.69%
Considering new Interface13 17.69%
System Installed on time?13 1076.92%




4 Responses for Evergreen in 2007

2017 : gen: 7.25 company 7.43 loyalty 7.02 support 7.55

2016 : gen: 7.22 company 7.40 loyalty 7.03 support 7.47

2015 : gen: 7.13 company 7.29 loyalty 7.15 support 7.39

2014 : gen: 6.78 company 7.10 loyalty 6.64 support 7.12

2013 : gen: 6.97 company 7.26 loyalty 7.08 support 7.15

2012 : gen: 6.22 company 6.70 loyalty 6.60 support 6.69

2011 : gen: 6.62 company 7.12 loyalty 6.74 support 7.05

2010 : gen: 6.83 company 6.58 loyalty 6.77 support 6.29

2009 : gen: 6.72 company 6.60 loyalty 6.82 support 6.45

2008 : gen: 7.08 company 7.15 loyalty 7.62 support 7.00

Comments

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[...] (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ILS