Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Mandarin M3

0 Responses for Mandarin M3 in 2018

2 Responses for Mandarin M3 in 2017

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

Mandarin M3allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS83.50 11050001
ILSFunctionality84.13 11050001
PrintFunctionality85.25 11050001
ElectronicFunctionality73.29 11040001
SatisfactionCustomerSupport84.50 11050001
CompanyLoyalty71.57 11040001



2016 Survey Results
Product: Mandarin M3 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction8 2 1 2 1 2 03.503
ILS Functionality8 1 1 3 3 34.133
Print Functionality8 1 1 2 1 1 2 45.256
Electronic Functionality7 1 2 1 2 1 23.293
Company Satisfaction8 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 34.134
Support Satisfaction8 2 1 2 1 1 1 14.505
Support Improvement7 3 2 1 1 13.434
Company Loyalty7 4 2 1 01.570
Open Source Interest7 2 2 1 2 26.006

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 675.00%
Considering new Interface8 00.00%
System Installed on time?8 562.50%

Average Collection size: 178240

TypeCount
Public5
Academic2
School0
Consortium1
Special0

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


4 Responses for Mandarin M3 in 2015


2014 Survey Results
Product: Mandarin M3 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction9 1 2 4 2 65.566
ILS Functionality9 3 5 1 65.226
Print Functionality9 1 2 3 2 1 65.566
Electronic Functionality9 2 1 3 2 1 33.003
Company Satisfaction9 1 1 1 2 4 86.677
Support Satisfaction9 1 3 2 1 2 66.677
Support Improvement9 1 3 1 2 1 1 45.225
Company Loyalty9 1 2 1 1 3 1 85.565
Open Source Interest9 3 1 2 2 1 03.445

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 440.00%
Considering new Interface10 00.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 37755

TypeCount
Public10
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2013 Survey Results
Product: Mandarin M3 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 1 3 1 76.147
ILS Functionality7 1 1 4 1 65.576
Print Functionality7 1 1 2 2 1 65.576
Electronic Functionality7 2 1 2 2 04.295
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 2 2 1 76.717
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 1 2 2 87.008
Support Improvement7 2 1 1 2 1 46.577
Company Loyalty7 1 2 1 1 2 24.866
Open Source Interest7 2 1 1 1 1 1 13.713

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 114.29%
Considering new Interface7 114.29%
System Installed on time?7 7100.00%

Average Collection size: 31069

TypeCount
Public6
Academic0
School1
Consortium0
Special0

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Mandarin M3 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction14 2 1 2 4 2 3 76.647
ILS Functionality14 2 1 3 4 2 2 76.437
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction14 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 97.078
Support Satisfaction14 1 1 1 2 2 7 97.439
Support Improvement13 1 1 5 3 3 56.155
Company Loyalty14 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 86.437
Open Source Interest14 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 02.432

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS15 213.33%
Considering new Interface15 00.00%
System Installed on time?15 1386.67%

Average Collection size: 37770

TypeCount
Public12
Academic0
School2
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00014
[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: Mandarin M3 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 1 3 3 1 2 66.707
ILS Functionality10 1 4 3 2 66.808
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 1 3 1 1 3 66.907
Support Satisfaction10 1 1 1 2 2 3 96.708
Support Improvement10 1 1 3 2 2 1 55.807
Company Loyalty10 1 1 2 1 2 3 96.007
Open Source Interest10 2 2 1 1 3 1 74.606

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 440.00%
Considering new Interface10 330.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 48426

TypeCount
Public9
Academic0
School1
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[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: Mandarin M3 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction11 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 86.277
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 1 2 4 1 1 75.907
Support Satisfaction11 1 1 2 3 3 1 76.097
Support Improvement11 1 7 1 1 1 55.365
Company Loyalty11 4 1 1 2 1 2 04.456
Open Source Interest11 4 1 2 1 3 04.365

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS11 654.55%
Considering new Interface11 327.27%
System Installed on time?11 1090.91%

Average Collection size: 19740

TypeCount
Public10
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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


5 Responses for Mandarin M3 in 2009

2 Responses for Mandarin M3 in 2008


2007 Survey Results
Product: Mandarin M3 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction8 1 2 1 2 2 45.757
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction9 1 3 2 3 56.337
Support Satisfaction9 1 1 2 2 3 86.117
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty9 2 1 1 2 2 1 03.785
Open Source Interest9 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 75.225

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS9 666.67%
Considering new Interface9 111.11%
System Installed on time?9 111.11%




2016 : gen: 3.50 company 4.13 loyalty 1.57 support 4.50

2014 : gen: 5.56 company 6.67 loyalty 5.56 support 6.67

2013 : gen: 6.14 company 6.71 loyalty 4.86 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.64 company 7.07 loyalty 6.43 support 7.43

2011 : gen: 6.70 company 6.90 loyalty 6.00 support 6.70

2010 : gen: 6.27 company 5.90 loyalty 4.45 support 6.09

2007 : gen: 5.75 company 6.33 loyalty 3.78 support 6.11

Comments

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)

ILS