Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Polaris


2017 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction167 1 1 2 9 21 49 53 31 87.378
ILS Functionality165 1 3 1 4 21 49 57 29 87.408
Print Functionality167 1 1 1 1 4 8 34 65 52 87.798
Electronic Functionality163 3 1 8 3 11 12 27 41 38 19 76.477
Company Satisfaction165 1 2 3 11 26 24 39 34 25 76.687
Support Satisfaction158 3 2 5 6 11 23 47 30 31 76.887
Support Improvement157 6 1 4 7 15 50 15 20 16 23 55.765
Company Loyalty162 4 4 1 5 11 15 23 28 29 42 96.697
Open Source Interest164 54 20 20 19 13 18 10 5 1 4 02.432

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS169 116.51%
Considering new Interface169 2414.20%
System Installed on time?169 15692.31%

Average Collection size: 484813

TypeCount
Public130
Academic8
School2
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00067
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00036
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00025
[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.

PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2167.35 147.21201207.35427.52128.004157.60
ILSFunctionality2187.25 156.80201217.37427.40127.504157.47
PrintFunctionality2137.72 147.79201187.77417.78127.584158.00
ElectronicFunctionality2126.30 154.93201166.52416.51125.674156.60
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2126.96 156.73201166.86427.31127.753157.00
CompanyLoyalty2136.75 137.31201186.69427.14127.004156.80



2016 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction216 1 3 3 2 6 29 60 69 43 87.358
ILS Functionality218 2 3 2 4 11 26 61 69 40 87.258
Print Functionality213 1 2 2 6 14 50 76 62 87.728
Electronic Functionality212 9 1 5 8 13 20 34 59 35 28 76.307
Company Satisfaction213 1 8 3 9 22 29 53 51 37 76.847
Support Satisfaction212 1 1 3 2 14 18 37 41 47 48 96.967
Support Improvement205 7 3 8 7 26 62 17 37 18 20 55.565
Company Loyalty213 8 1 5 17 22 22 40 51 47 86.757
Open Source Interest215 92 30 28 15 20 15 6 5 2 2 01.821

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS219 167.31%
Considering new Interface219 2310.50%
System Installed on time?219 20493.15%

Average Collection size: 453385

TypeCount
Public180
Academic17
School4
Consortium15
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 4 2 9 24 69 61 34 77.247
ILS Functionality207 1 2 4 1 13 22 50 82 32 87.308
Print Functionality207 3 1 1 3 1 10 8 36 94 50 87.578
Electronic Functionality206 3 3 4 15 7 31 35 52 33 23 76.237
Company Satisfaction206 1 2 3 7 7 29 34 43 54 26 86.677
Support Satisfaction204 2 3 5 13 25 27 30 56 43 86.907
Support Improvement195 7 3 11 18 20 58 13 27 18 20 55.335
Company Loyalty198 5 3 5 9 12 18 21 33 50 42 86.637
Open Source Interest204 82 27 27 16 17 15 9 4 1 6 02.041

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS215 177.91%
Considering new Interface215 2612.09%
System Installed on time?215 19791.63%

Average Collection size: 459670

TypeCount
Public184
Academic11
School0
Consortium18
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00097
[3] 100,001-250,00046
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00025
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction169 1 1 1 8 19 43 59 37 87.518
ILS Functionality169 1 1 1 1 1 6 20 46 59 33 87.408
Print Functionality167 3 1 1 1 5 9 33 64 50 87.668
Electronic Functionality164 5 3 7 12 22 34 34 33 14 66.206
Company Satisfaction168 1 1 1 6 9 25 46 44 35 77.237
Support Satisfaction165 1 4 4 6 2 14 41 49 44 87.368
Support Improvement161 4 3 5 7 20 48 16 22 20 16 55.645
Company Loyalty167 6 1 2 9 9 20 29 43 48 97.118
Open Source Interest161 63 22 16 13 16 14 6 8 2 1 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 95.29%
Considering new Interface170 169.41%
System Installed on time?170 16496.47%

Average Collection size: 570334

TypeCount
Public143
Academic10
School0
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00045
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction138 1 9 10 34 49 35 87.638
ILS Functionality138 3 6 12 36 51 30 87.548
Print Functionality136 2 2 2 8 7 19 52 44 87.658
Electronic Functionality136 3 3 3 6 8 19 22 22 36 14 86.287
Company Satisfaction136 1 1 11 7 27 46 43 87.708
Support Satisfaction137 3 2 11 9 30 41 41 87.548
Support Improvement135 1 1 4 2 32 15 22 27 31 56.837
Company Loyalty137 2 1 3 3 8 8 23 29 60 97.628
Open Source Interest134 60 18 20 8 5 13 3 5 2 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS143 10.70%
Considering new Interface143 1510.49%
System Installed on time?143 13292.31%

Average Collection size: 532870

TypeCount
Public118
Academic11
School1
Consortium11
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00018
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00016
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 2 4 8 29 64 45 87.878
ILS Functionality152 1 1 4 8 54 51 33 77.628
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction151 2 2 1 6 9 17 60 54 87.838
Support Satisfaction152 1 3 2 5 11 44 44 42 77.528
Support Improvement144 2 3 8 50 19 17 16 29 56.376
Company Loyalty152 1 1 2 14 3 21 24 86 97.979
Open Source Interest149 50 19 23 22 12 10 8 3 1 1 02.112

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 21.24%
Considering new Interface161 63.73%
System Installed on time?161 15093.17%

Average Collection size: 411671

TypeCount
Public140
Academic8
School1
Consortium9
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00043
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 4 1 3 3 19 37 35 87.778
ILS Functionality102 1 4 8 20 46 23 87.718
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 1 2 3 2 4 15 36 37 97.808
Support Satisfaction100 2 2 4 2 6 22 29 33 97.558
Support Improvement97 3 1 2 2 6 23 10 12 18 20 56.377
Company Loyalty100 1 2 2 2 2 2 9 28 52 97.959
Open Source Interest99 46 12 20 8 2 6 3 1 1 01.481

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS106 21.89%
Considering new Interface106 87.55%
System Installed on time?106 10195.28%

Average Collection size: 541249

TypeCount
Public91
Academic3
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,00022
[4] 250,001-1,000,00020
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 1 3 2 1 3 17 42 32 87.778
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 2 2 6 3 14 32 41 97.838
Support Satisfaction101 1 4 1 4 3 18 30 40 97.748
Support Improvement100 1 1 2 3 17 11 6 33 26 87.118
Company Loyalty100 1 1 1 2 4 6 8 25 52 97.929
Open Source Interest100 41 13 17 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 01.981

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 65.77%
Considering new Interface104 109.62%
System Installed on time?104 9995.19%

Average Collection size: 356804

TypeCount
Public92
Academic6
School0
Consortium6
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00033
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 2 1 1 13 52 21 87.798
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction92 1 1 1 4 4 6 48 27 87.808
Support Satisfaction91 2 1 2 1 1 17 45 22 87.688
Support Improvement87 3 1 1 3 13 12 8 29 17 86.838
Company Loyalty91 3 1 1 1 5 2 5 37 36 87.688
Open Source Interest90 27 21 13 2 6 10 4 3 3 1 02.281

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS92 66.52%
Considering new Interface92 66.52%
System Installed on time?92 8592.39%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction51 2 3 4 5 21 16 87.738
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction51 4 3 2 5 15 22 97.768
Support Satisfaction51 1 4 4 3 8 11 20 97.418
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty52 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 25 97.338
Open Source Interest51 15 13 6 3 2 7 1 1 3 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS53 59.43%
Considering new Interface53 35.66%
System Installed on time?53 4890.57%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction59 1 1 1 5 12 18 21 97.788
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction64 1 1 3 2 11 20 26 97.898
Support Satisfaction64 1 3 2 8 17 33 98.119
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty63 2 2 2 3 5 7 18 24 97.498
Open Source Interest62 20 11 11 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 02.272

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS64 11.56%
Considering new Interface64 23.13%
System Installed on time?64 11.56%




2017 : gen: 7.37 company 6.68 loyalty 6.69 support 6.88

2016 : gen: 7.35 company 6.84 loyalty 6.75 support 6.96

2015 : gen: 7.24 company 6.67 loyalty 6.63 support 6.90

2014 : gen: 7.51 company 7.23 loyalty 7.11 support 7.36

2013 : gen: 7.63 company 7.70 loyalty 7.62 support 7.54

2012 : gen: 7.87 company 7.83 loyalty 7.97 support 7.52

2011 : gen: 7.77 company 7.80 loyalty 7.95 support 7.55

2010 : gen: 7.77 company 7.83 loyalty 7.92 support 7.74

2009 : gen: 7.79 company 7.80 loyalty 7.68 support 7.68

2008 : gen: 7.73 company 7.76 loyalty 7.33 support 7.41

2007 : gen: 7.78 company 7.89 loyalty 7.49 support 8.11

Comments

We are not happy that there will apparently be no further real development for the desktop client as everything is being focused on the web client (LEAP). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Site manager support is excellent. Receiving quotations is difficult as the Innovative Interfaces Inc. staff does not understand library needs like the Polaris ILS sales staff. Prices for services have risen rapidly since III acquired Polaris. III has a "corporate" approach in contrast to the Polaris "libraries are our partners" approach to the detriment of relationships. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are in the process of adding security gates and having trouble with meshing Polaris software with Security software. The two companies, although both say they work with each other, are having trouble working with each other. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very pleased with our program (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are part of a consortium that delivers tremendous value for our library. While I prefer an open source solution that is highly customized for our use, I would pursue this independently. We defer to our other members who, for whatever reason, are unable to develop and open source product in the foreseeable future. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

There needs to be a "not applicable" or "do not know" button for your survey. Our system is handled through our regional system so I don't have answers for some of the questions asked. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The ILS current employs the POLARIS System. Although POLARIS has been making upgrades, it seems that it could do better or the ILS could start looking for something a bit more up-to-date (user friendly/additional features). (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer service isn't as good as it was before III purchased Polaris. However, it has improved from what it was that first year after Polaris became part of III. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are now able to include our eBook and eAudio holdings in our ILS which was not an option previously - we also are now part of a consortia for eBooks/eAudios so there is a significant different in number of items in the collection than previously. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

This is our first year with Polaris. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The technical customer support remains high. The sales support is having serious problems. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

After III purchased Polaris, the customer service is not as good. They removed all video tutorials and while they offer additional in-person training (at additional cost), they appear to push a cloud product that is not complete. I refuse to move to it voluntarily since the cataloging module has not been completed. It appears they are going backwards by completing the PAC and circulation functions before cataloging....but maybe that's too traditional? The one consistent positive is that there is still a way to reach out to the other Polaris users and learn from each other as well as the site manager is really attentive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not as happy with Polaris since taken over by iii. It seems that customer service has changed. That said, Polaris is still one of the best. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Remote Desktop is still a bad way to connect to their SAS. It is OLD technology that was not designed to be connected 12 hours a day. We have had all sorts of dropped connections, once 47 times in one day, and 5 so far today.They really need to develop a desktop or web-based client. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Electronic resources is a relatively new and growing category for us, so we don't have a lot of experience using the ILS for them. Consequently, I'd consider the rating as tentative for that category. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

All have plusses and minuses. The only reason for looking at other ILS products is the possibility of Innovative eliminating Polaris or morphing it into a more expensive product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall we have been very happy with Polaris. We are working on/discovering new things we can do to make our ebook collection more visible and available. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris was and is a great product. The acquisition by III has affected customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

While Polaris has been acquired by Innovative, we've seen very little from the Polaris branch in terms of culture change that's been negative. Customer Service is still great and while some things are transitioning, it hasn't been bad at all. We're still very happy with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As I understand it, Polaris was the only company that could handle the migration of so many libraries from multiple other vendors. We are part of the [...], which is now providing the largest shared catalog in north America. We would not consider leaving that consortium. Our support comes from the library system, so we really can't speak to what it's like to work directly with Polaris. We've seen a few issues that we don't love: 1. The staff interface is small print, so it is inaccessible to visually impaired staff. 2. Some of the data on our reports is inaccurate. 3. We have had trouble with text notifications not getting to patrons. That said, we are generally satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a school library, we are a part of the public library in our city, and so are able to have delivery. This means though that we have to use the public library ILS, which is not optimized at all for the needs of a school. The trade off though is expanding my library's collection, so we attempt to make it work. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have struggled with implementing new services that interface with Polaris. Examples include pulling extracts for Collection HQ, Boopsie and Ebsco Discovery. The ILS is generally supportive but on occasion it has taken too long to address our concerns. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris has always been very helpful when we've called. They've returned our calls promptly if we've left messages. None of the staff here now was here when this system was implemented, so there are many times we call just because we've not been trained on this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The staff of [...] has been very pleased with the level of interaction we have been able to maintain with the iii staff working with Polaris. This level of collaboration and cooperation has helped us resolve technical issues related to supporting the largest--and still growing--library automation consortium in North America, to the benefit of all Polaris users. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

In 2016, [...] conducted a ILS Assessment project. During this project, we looked at user satisfaction of Polaris in addition to comparative user satisfaction for other ILS Systems. This data was used to inform the above impressions. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

All contact with company and support is through [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The library had used a stand alone Polaris system. Now part of a consortium using Polaris. I'm new to the position, so it's hard to answer these questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Excellent support when upgrading and having technical issues. We like SkyRiver. Sometimes it takes awhile for invoices and quotes. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall positive impression of Polaris as a company and its customer service. The ILS is not perfect but it is functional. We are considering purchasing a discovery layer to improve findability in the public catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We remain very happy with Polaris. Technically, the product has been rock solid. Zero down time in the three years since we migrated other than pre-planned upgrades. We are fully hosted and could not have hoped for better technical performance. The application provides most of what we need, and we're happy with the way it works. The development of the basic client does seem to have slowed noticeably, and apparently in favor of LEAP, but that's of course an uninformed impression from the outside. There are some strong improvements that could be made in the legacy client that are listed enhancements but it seems like few of the overall enhancements make the cut. Software documentation is thorough in content, but the multitude of disparate PDFs and the inconsistent updating are both annoying. I'd love to see some energy put into getting it put into a more usable format. Unified, accessible, keyword searchable, etc. Customer support for us remains fantastic. The technical support and the application support staff have been consistently first-rate. We like Polaris and are still glad we moved to it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Things seem to be more stable now with the new CEO. Still some uncertainty about how the multiple product lines will be maintained in the long term. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The only negative feedback I have about Polaris is the statistics that I gather can be incorrect. For example, the ILL statistics for the annual report are usually way off so we go by the statistics that are gathered by the ILL Technician. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are generally very happy with our ILS and the company. I do feel that over the past couple of years our communication with Polaris staff has become more 'arms length' than when we first started and had very personal attention. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have used Polaris since we migrated from Galaxy, and we have been satisfied with our relationship. However, the acquisition of Polaris by iii has affected the relationship somewhat and we are unsure of future satisfaction. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our implementation of Polaris Leap went very well. Our staff are very happy with the product. As new users we are still discovering features and engaging on enhancements. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Innovative is a great company. But they are letting Polaris die a slow death. Tech support is horrible and using the product is like pulling shards of glass from my own feet. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

The most egregious issue with Polaris is its inability to link bibs to authorities with free-floating subdivisions. This really needs fixing, but is being treated as a possible (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris is a superior product. While there are always a few features that may be improved with any system, Polaris has been very flexible and has a much better track record with providing enhancements than our past systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We liked the company Polaris Library Systems much more than the company III. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

all comments above relate to the ILS company, not our consortia (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

cannot get support through vendor-have to go through Consortium administrator. Still have pending issues vendor has not addressed. Migration resulted in many incorrect records that required cleanup. Would like to explore open ILS options, but unable to do so as a member of the Consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Can never get a real person from sales or billing when calling - always have to leave a message. Response back via voice or email is always slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Support and customer rapport have suffered post-merger. With fewer alternatives, though, there's very little recourse. Costs have still managed to go up. It's hard to be optimistic about the future of ILS software in general, much less this (or any) specific product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Not actively considering Koha but have an open conversation with [...] , a local college consortium that adopted Koha last year, supported by ByWater Solutions, I believe. Will be open to future conversations in case it makes sense for us in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Polaris going above and beyond anything that I can say to help and assist its customers. I would even state that they look at us as their partners. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Technical Customer Support has been good overall, with the same excellent technical support staff Polaris had before the buyout by Innovative. Sales and follow-through, on the other hand, has suffered. I am not sure if this is due to restructuring the organization or not. I suspect it is due to that as we still haven't heard who our new sales rep is since the last one left. Any time something needs to go to sales, I can expect a bottleneck. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our consortium makes decisions together about our ILS, and our consortium tech group takes care of all the interactions with Polaris. I don't know about a lot of the details. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The biggest problem from the technical standpoint that we've seen with this system is the inability to handle operations with large record sets - loading and managing large e-resource collections is very difficult. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since being acquired by Innovative, Polaris support has been less responsive to our needs. We're migrating to Apollo because they focus specifically on small libraries; the level of discovery that we need as a small, public library is simply not as great as what a complex ILS like Polaris delivers. The savings that migrating will generate can be far more effectively redirected into other services. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We'd like better customer service response time. We usually have a wait time of 2 months. We can not afford a different system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Polaris has good features and bad. They do major updates without fixing or changing issues/problems we have had with Polaris since the beginning. Every time Polaris does an update we have major problems and circulation isn't the same for several days. Printing to receipt printers is a huge constant problem as the printers will go offline without warning. Polaris is better than the old system we had but it could be better than what it is! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We were extremely satisfied with both Polaris as a vendor and the Polaris ILS. Customer service has definitely declined since III took over Polaris. The product is still good but the service leaves a great deal to be desired. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Polaris ILS has been a very reliable system that has had very minimal tweaks to it's configuration. We have used this product for the past eight years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

While the Polaris ILS is still a great product, and contact with any of the original Polaris employees still left is helpful, III taking over the company has definitely lowered the quality of service received from the vendor. Invoicing/billing particularly is a nightmare, customer service takes twice as long, staff turnover seems to be significant. We loved that Polaris was a smaller company with exceptional products, staff, and customer support. We no longer get that high quality support since III took over. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The current ILS the library deploys is overkill. The library uses a separate financial system (deployed throughout the College). All the library requires in an ILS is circulation and bibliograpic controls and searching. The library will be looking to move a cloud-based product. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

There has been a delay in customer service support response the past year. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Just moved into production on Polaris today. we've had a few hiccups, but we expect that things will be sorted out soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris is geared towards public libraries. I would like to see more development in features that are more utilized by academic libraries, such recalling materials, settings circulation renewal limits by patron type, and better search, display, and batch edit options for course reserve items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The 60,000 items are just those in print and in the ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

ILS