Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony


2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction337 2 3 7 7 14 24 52 104 85 39 76.787
ILS Functionality337 1 5 5 8 13 29 56 101 91 28 76.707
Print Functionality331 3 3 5 3 7 14 32 79 124 61 87.278
Electronic Functionality335 8 17 24 15 19 52 59 64 58 19 75.626
Company Satisfaction332 2 3 6 7 14 29 47 76 88 60 86.917
Support Satisfaction329 2 5 3 8 9 20 36 61 104 81 87.228
Support Improvement325 3 1 4 7 29 87 39 50 55 50 56.326
Company Loyalty326 15 4 12 8 12 30 33 71 73 68 86.577
Open Source Interest330 105 45 48 22 41 34 16 11 3 5 02.372

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS340 6519.12%
Considering new Interface340 329.41%
System Installed on time?340 31291.76%

Average Collection size: 788386

TypeCount
Public152
Academic78
School10
Consortium21
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00013
[2] 10,001-100,000109
[3] 100,001-250,00069
[4] 250,001-1,000,00076
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00055
[6] over 10,000,0013


Statistics according to type and size categories

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

SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4326.78 686.24396.28226.451566.85537.23176.88147.64247.54
ILSFunctionality4326.81 686.60396.38226.271566.85537.08176.88147.43247.75
PrintFunctionality4277.32 677.16387.16227.641557.14527.62176.47148.14248.17
ElectronicFunctionality4235.73 675.07394.74225.501516.01526.12165.25146.64236.70
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4197.10 676.78397.03226.731467.05527.25177.35147.71248.13
CompanyLoyalty4266.63 675.97385.79216.241536.69537.06177.18137.38258.16



2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction432 3 4 10 12 18 31 58 126 117 53 76.787
ILS Functionality432 2 2 9 13 22 31 54 132 111 56 76.817
Print Functionality427 6 1 4 8 11 18 31 104 153 91 87.328
Electronic Functionality423 16 12 25 22 38 45 78 80 73 34 75.736
Company Satisfaction428 6 4 12 10 21 32 49 110 111 73 86.807
Support Satisfaction419 4 4 5 11 17 29 44 91 111 103 87.108
Support Improvement411 5 4 5 8 45 101 53 50 67 73 56.296
Company Loyalty426 17 11 8 11 16 46 41 84 90 102 96.637
Open Source Interest419 140 57 54 32 46 38 20 12 6 14 02.422

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS437 8118.54%
Considering new Interface437 5011.44%
System Installed on time?437 40291.99%

Average Collection size: 2747271

TypeCount
Public235
Academic132
School14
Consortium25
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00016
[2] 10,001-100,000151
[3] 100,001-250,00092
[4] 250,001-1,000,00096
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00059
[6] over 10,000,0015



2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction437 5 6 12 8 20 37 58 131 113 47 76.667
ILS Functionality436 8 15 12 18 41 54 132 116 40 76.627
Print Functionality437 4 5 4 5 17 22 36 123 144 77 87.168
Electronic Functionality432 12 20 23 27 35 62 61 89 69 34 75.666
Company Satisfaction432 5 9 13 15 18 30 51 109 119 63 86.697
Support Satisfaction427 5 4 14 12 15 33 36 101 123 84 86.927
Support Improvement420 8 7 3 5 46 108 42 71 69 61 56.206
Company Loyalty433 23 14 10 9 23 44 49 84 97 80 86.357
Open Source Interest426 153 61 59 27 40 37 15 15 5 14 02.271

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS460 8217.83%
Considering new Interface460 4610.00%
System Installed on time?460 40287.39%

Average Collection size: 653631

TypeCount
Public256
Academic116
School22
Consortium27
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,000168
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00098
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00051
[6] over 10,000,0011



2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction354 1 4 9 16 14 29 55 124 76 26 76.537
ILS Functionality355 1 2 11 13 16 29 66 104 85 28 76.567
Print Functionality351 3 2 4 4 11 13 43 81 125 65 87.248
Electronic Functionality347 10 19 28 34 17 45 63 72 41 18 75.316
Company Satisfaction352 9 12 17 19 26 57 98 80 34 76.437
Support Satisfaction348 2 4 7 11 13 29 50 86 89 57 86.827
Support Improvement339 2 3 2 9 38 96 29 49 53 58 56.286
Company Loyalty343 13 12 13 17 22 38 43 56 68 61 86.157
Open Source Interest346 108 61 49 26 31 25 18 6 8 14 02.392

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS361 7621.05%
Considering new Interface361 5214.40%
System Installed on time?361 32289.20%

Average Collection size: 707313

TypeCount
Public182
Academic111
School7
Consortium19
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000118
[3] 100,001-250,00081
[4] 250,001-1,000,00075
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0012



2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction315 3 3 8 14 18 23 36 99 74 37 76.617
ILS Functionality314 2 2 7 20 10 20 52 88 72 41 76.657
Print Functionality314 3 1 3 4 9 20 35 76 99 64 87.218
Electronic Functionality307 7 17 21 29 24 46 52 50 36 25 65.366
Company Satisfaction313 4 9 10 16 14 17 43 81 77 42 76.517
Support Satisfaction312 4 3 6 8 16 26 28 77 79 65 86.917
Support Improvement307 4 2 7 5 17 83 23 57 50 59 56.467
Company Loyalty312 21 8 10 9 17 41 26 56 61 63 96.197
Open Source Interest304 90 34 49 22 27 40 13 13 7 9 02.672

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS324 6620.37%
Considering new Interface324 5817.90%
System Installed on time?324 29290.12%

Average Collection size: 835498

TypeCount
Public139
Academic87
School29
Consortium26
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00024
[2] 10,001-100,00080
[3] 100,001-250,00064
[4] 250,001-1,000,00067
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00041
[6] over 10,000,0012



2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction380 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 122 72 30 76.377
ILS Functionality380 1 1 5 24 24 41 47 114 94 29 76.527
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction378 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 98 71 32 76.217
Support Satisfaction378 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 102 80 50 76.487
Support Improvement371 3 3 6 16 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.236
Company Loyalty376 30 11 22 18 25 48 33 76 54 59 75.707
Open Source Interest374 97 44 47 35 35 42 28 19 13 14 03.012

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS393 7920.10%
Considering new Interface393 7619.34%
System Installed on time?393 34888.55%

Average Collection size: 644460

TypeCount
Public206
Academic114
School4
Consortium21
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000125
[3] 100,001-250,00093
[4] 250,001-1,000,00080
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00054
[6] over 10,000,0012



2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction326 5 6 9 11 21 37 61 102 57 17 76.187
ILS Functionality320 1 2 7 18 18 30 63 93 69 19 76.397
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction326 6 7 19 20 24 35 58 83 53 21 75.886
Support Satisfaction324 4 10 11 14 18 44 54 72 68 29 76.177
Support Improvement323 5 10 10 12 28 81 37 60 48 32 55.876
Company Loyalty323 23 16 16 13 31 44 40 54 55 31 85.476
Open Source Interest318 63 32 48 21 34 45 18 27 12 18 03.483

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS333 7622.82%
Considering new Interface333 8826.43%
System Installed on time?333 30390.99%

Average Collection size: 570393

TypeCount
Public151
Academic116
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00084
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00040
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction271 3 5 9 12 19 37 41 77 50 18 76.157
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 8 8 17 11 26 37 54 57 39 14 75.636
Support Satisfaction269 8 7 15 20 23 32 50 56 39 19 75.676
Support Improvement271 11 7 16 28 21 87 26 26 26 23 55.155
Company Loyalty270 18 15 10 24 29 34 40 40 32 28 65.266
Open Source Interest269 64 26 30 17 19 31 29 19 14 20 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS282 5720.21%
Considering new Interface282 8128.72%
System Installed on time?282 24285.82%

Average Collection size: 580366

TypeCount
Public142
Academic88
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00085
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00028
[6] over 10,000,0011



2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction304 3 5 6 9 16 62 56 96 44 7 76.066
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction303 5 9 27 23 22 56 48 79 29 5 75.346
Support Satisfaction303 3 12 30 23 17 54 45 66 41 12 75.446
Support Improvement292 7 11 19 29 23 89 35 39 30 10 55.095
Company Loyalty301 32 14 12 14 23 67 31 49 43 16 55.065
Open Source Interest300 53 34 26 25 30 40 25 20 23 24 03.904

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS310 4915.81%
Considering new Interface310 8527.42%
System Installed on time?310 26184.19%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction233 4 7 11 19 16 35 37 64 32 8 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction234 9 9 16 31 28 23 43 43 26 6 65.056
Support Satisfaction233 12 14 23 18 21 36 39 38 23 9 64.915
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty233 21 13 19 18 17 36 20 43 34 12 74.955
Open Source Interest231 36 23 21 24 17 37 12 23 16 22 54.114

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS234 5423.08%
Considering new Interface234 6929.49%
System Installed on time?234 21491.45%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction200 4 1 5 10 6 23 29 64 43 15 76.417
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction284 5 8 20 23 27 43 47 61 38 12 75.506
Support Satisfaction282 6 10 13 27 37 33 42 64 34 16 75.486
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty279 25 10 12 9 16 59 31 42 36 39 55.526
Open Source Interest281 54 41 36 32 17 36 21 14 9 21 03.353

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS288 4214.58%
Considering new Interface288 6020.83%
System Installed on time?288 10.35%




2017 : gen: 6.78 company 6.91 loyalty 6.57 support 7.22

2016 : gen: 6.78 company 6.80 loyalty 6.63 support 7.10

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48

Comments

Alma seems to be dominating the academic library space, esp. in GA. Sirsi doesn't seem to focus on academics and doesn't completely understand their own products. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Comments regarding vendor satisfaction relate to our consortium, which handles relations with SIRSI and provides support for desktop Workflows implementation and Enterprise public web interface. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have been a SD library since 1989, they have worked to meet the needs of a varied market. I have been satisfied with their products and the customer support staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Decision to select BLUECloud Campus suite over Alma was a very close call. Alma is more mature and being fully web based already is a distinct benefit; but maybe less open to bespoke development whereas BLUEcloud suite is newer and customers can actively participate in the development and piloting of the product. This engenders a good relationship with the company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We use Bibliocommons as our discovery layer. We have found that the quality of customer service from the company has steadily been declining, as has the quality of the product. We are considering doing an evaluation of all the discovery layer products in 2017 to see if there are any better options in the marketplace. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are very happy with SirsiDynix and what it offers our libraries (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer support can vary considerably. Sometimes knowledgeable and solves the problem; other times misses the mark (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would like to see improved customer service. Some products are not consortia friendly or for a system our size. Example ERC (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I don't think that the product is our biggest issue. Our issues relate to being a recent partner to an established consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

There seems to be a lot of "updating" in the system over the last few years. We've had promises of implementation of new products but we've yet to see them. Not happy with how slow this process seems to be. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

While SD Enterprise provided a solid OPAC search tool for our ILS data and had nice electronic integration features with eRC capabilities, BiblioCommons has become our OPAC choice due to the variety of choices available for patrons in content management for lists and "community" features. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix are developing lots of ILS augmentation tools that are potentially very powerful and useful. By example, MobilCirc is a tool we are trying to develop our practical use of that is working well. BookMyne as well as a flexible mobile compliant Enterprise interface lift our productivity and uptake by the community. BlueCloud analytics and the new BlueCloud tools dramatically increase our access to better efficient tools. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Past experience of both SirsiDynix and Ex Libris very positive; ProQuest less so but see improvement through integration of ProQuest products in Ex Libris support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are adding Enterprise - SirsiDynix's discovery/enhanced OPAC. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix has done a good job of introducing new products to help libraries serve their customers. My biggest concern is that sometimes products are released for use before they are capable of performing as promised/intended. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

1 person library. I will tend to use the system used by most libraries in my geographic area because it gives me a local support system and because my patrons will be used to it too (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

On a day-to-day basis, the system works well, is reliable and does not experience downtime. It performs all the basic functions well and staff are able to resolve all issues with patron, circulation and catalog records in an efficient manner. We are always looking for improvements and for the vendor to stay abreast of trending technology. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix are very slow are implementing new applications. Symphony is not very user friendly and at times seems very antiquated. Very few hyperlinks. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

SirsiDynix would be a better company if they had an easier way for other companies to integrate with their ILS. For example, we have been waiting over a year and a half since the last executive meeting we had with ChiliFresh and SirsiDynix at the 2015 User Conference in which we are trying to make it so that patrons don't have to create "another" account in order to add comments to individual titles. Also ILLiad would be better if we could use SIP2 instead of patrons having another account. SSO should be a higher priority. Also the ability to gather statistics from the mobile App BookMyne, the support of Android on their BookMyne+, the ability to use Social Library (Facebook App) on a mobile device -- has never worked. There is no progress towards fixing certain issues on these and many more. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

40,000 books, 150,000 eBooks, 40 databases, over 4000 other materials, including DVDS (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

As part of a consortium, I feel our contract is such that we do not have access to the latest tools and technology available through our ILS. There are many features that are not available to us, and the company will not make them available to us except at increased cost. Our ILS has not been updated noticeably in several years, even though there have been many advances in the software as a whole. Our upgrades seem to all be at the network level, and not at the user level. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

We moved to our new ILS about a year ago. We share our system with [...] . Enterprise has been well received by out students, however the staff interface, Workflows, has issues. Particularly Serials and Acquisitions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The ILS is a valuable host for the library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently in a hosted environment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are relatively satisfied with our SIrsi Dynix Symphony product. We are a long-term software customer with this company, and we are not looking to change our automation company. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS is provided by our library consortium. We migrated to be better connected to the consortium earlier this year. The process was frustrating and SIRSI employees were less than helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Everything in this survey is based on our relationship with our consortium. NOT the ILS company. So, this is pretty much useless as surveys go. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our statewide consortial membership is driving the consideration of migration away from our current ILS vendor. For ourselves, we are still happy with Symphony and EDS but will follow the decision of the group (which is considering SirsiDynix in addition to the others) Sirsi's slow development of BLUEcloud is a problem for the group. We are also watching EBSCO's progress with FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Sirsi product we currently use is not as functional or intuitive as we would like. Reports are very finicky to create or customize. We also have to pay for a separate bibliographic service to import records for cataloguing. The cost is prohibitive for a small library and the customer service is inadequate. Response to our requests for technical assistance is slow and answers to specific questions are often cagey, especially as our contract approaches expiry. Contract lengths are also too long for such a rapidly evolving technological climate and the terms are too binding. Biblionix has been very straightforward in their response to our inquiries and has even provided an unlimited trial of their product for us to assess with no pressure. Their product appears to be more intuitive and functional, with better search accuracy, simpler report structures, easy built-in importing of bibliographic records and excellent customer support, all at a much lower cost and with much shorter, less binding contracts. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have no direct dealings with the SirsiDynix company or their support services. All of our support services are from our Consortium, which is why I left those questions blank. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Current system is dated and we must upgrade to Sirsi's Enterprise Discovery tool or BlueCloud products. Sirsi Symphony's search algorithm is dated and not helpful to our users. BlueCloud does not seem to be fully developed to other libraries' satisfaction. WMS implementation using (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

SirsiDynix is a great company and very innovative and progressive. Sadly it doesn't cater for small specialist libraries similar to academic and does not provide a suitable facility for managing electronic resources. Both of which is most important for this Library. In comparison Koha is significantly cheaper with a simpler system. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our library is part of the [...] , and systems are pretty much run by the [...] , with limited information sharing. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Need to open separate windows to do different tasks on same item or patron, not practical in busy library, also requires separate software program and knowlege base to generate even simple lists for weeding and patrons, now they are changing to another software program, and training has not even begun for this one. No manual provided for this software or the last one we used. No onliine support unless the consortium contacts them with an issue or question. No way to easily order items using the catalog records. This is the third system I have used in my career at 4 different libraries over 20 years and this is the poorest of the three! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

I like SirsiDynix as a customer service company, but they don't have a modern ILS/LSP really so that is why I am not considering them in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am frustrated that Sirsi's business model includes a 3.9% annual price increase. The bottom line is big for the expensive ILS and that percentage becomes significant. I don't feel that we receive upgrades and benefits worth a 3.9% increase. Library budgets don't keep up with inflation and library salaries certainly do not so it's frustrating to see this continue to rise and rise and rise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

SirsiDynix has outstanding Customer Service, and their people are wonderful to work with. They are responsive to our questions and concerns and we are particularly pleased with their Software As A Service, which we use for both our ILS and Discovery Interface. We are happy, satisfied customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very US centric. Not interested in other countries requirements e.g. adequate cash reports, checks and balances. Doesn't meet promised release dates outside the US. Reports are either clunky (Symphony) or overly complex (Analytics). Don't feel there's been very much progress in the last 5 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would like to explore a new ILS, however it is not possible for various reasons. If however [...] sponsors an ILS for the community colleges in [...] we will be eager to move our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Stable, service-oriented (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are disappointed with performance of Symphony in a consortial environment, especially with the current Workflows interface which is getting very long in the tooth. Both searching for titles and management of holds are more difficult than they should be. However the new BlueCloud Analytics reporting tool is a big improvement over the tool we used before, i.e. Director's Station. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

The number of items in the library's collection includes downloadable items. It hasn't included them in the past. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Much of our discontent could be caused by the consortium we are in. We are not happy with SirsiDynix but do not feel as if the consortium officers are listening to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

SirsiDynix have great vision moving to the BLUEcloud, just wish development could happen more quickly. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix are a good ILS company in terms of customer support, however their pace of development for functionality such as e-resource management and integrated resource discovery has been slow compared with other ILS vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While SirsiDynix has been offering an increasing number of webinars to showcase new products and discuss ideas that affect the broader library community - events I've been happy to participate in - I've also noticed a drop in the degree of personal contact I have with company representatives. I used to have twice-yearly conversations with a Library Relations Manager, but those calls ended with her retirement and I would be hard pressed to name our current LR contact, if we even have one at all. I've also had some difficulties in my dealings with sales: evidently a member of their sales team left the company abruptly, and the one who's left seems completely overwhelmed. It's strange, to say the least, to be working with a vendor that isn't jumping at the opportunity to bill for more services. Overall, Symphony continues to meet our ILS needs, but I do wonder what's going on at SirsiDynix on a corporate level. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix has improved both thier products and their customer service quite a bit in the past few years, but still tends to label bugs, even those that break previous functionality, as "requested enhancements." I'll admit that many of my low number answers stem from my reluctance to upgrade, because I have to look through pages of release notes and posts from other customers to see what kinds of gotchas I'm going to encounter. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] is still very satisfied with the partnership we have with SirsiDynix. We hope BLUEcloud Campus will come together sooner than later. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

In my personal opinion (which is not shared by all) the SirsiDynix product if a very effective tool for managing our library collection. We receive excellent training and support through our library consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Market leader, generally a professional and knowledgeable service. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix's support has greatly improved over the years. I'm happy to say it's now rare for me to encounter someone responding to one of our requests for assistance who hasn't a clue and needs to bring someone else in to figure out the solution. That still does happen, unfortunately, but it's now the exception instead of the norm. We've added their discovery product, Enterprise and their reporting solution, BC Analytics in the last year. Now we offer our patrons a more familiar search system in our catalog and can run more meaningful reports to better understand what parts of our collection are being used and by whom. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

No vendor is perfect and given the complexities of modern ILSes I think SirsiDynix is right there near the top. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Happy with SirsiDynix Symphony WorkFlows. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are installing Enterprise and ERC starting today. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very satisfied with SirsiDynix as a vendor--especially in the last few years. They have gone to great lengths to be more transparent and responsive to customers' needs--from product development to sales to billing. I only wish they could hire even more developers to be able to complete and improve the BLUECloud products faster and better. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Over the last few years, our library vendor has been moving all of their services from a client based platform to a web based platform. We are impressed with the new products that are now available, and believe this vendor is moving in the right direction. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We currently have Enterprise and Summon Discovery but looking at EDS integration with Enterprise - testing shortly. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix seems to be moving in the right direction with its Blue Cloud web-based products and SaaS offerings. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix's development timetable is extremely slow, and not in tune with current trends. For example, their OPAC software, 'Enterprise', is not a responsive web design for mobile device usage, despite years of requests by customers. That is scheduled for the next version upgrade 3-4 months away, assuming it is not delayed for any reason. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a [...] joint use library- a school and public library combined. Our LMS is managed by Public Library Services. They coordinated training, migration, implementation , upgrades, repairs and maintenance and enhancements for us. In the future we would be aligned with whatever system suits our Public Libraries SA Network.We have a great local IT staff member but PLS also assist with statistics, issues, inter library loans etc etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our Regional Library is in the process of implementing a regional ILS for the [...]. The project is still in processing and several vendors have been investigated. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Solid LMS almost never off line, updates done efficiently, and good customer care. No complaints with the system. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This library currently runs Symphony but is under contract to migrate to Koha through Bywater later in 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Probably the biggest complaint with this vendor is that considering the amount of money they charge, they provide limited free training to use their product. Much of their self paced training requires you to pay, and the free training content that they do offer is not always easy to follow. Considering that their product is not user friendly this can be frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

The legacy Workflows software is stable and meets the needs of our member libraries. The BLUECloud components still lag in terms of features by the consortium members. We are locally hosted and recently we've found that upgrades of middleware are becoming increasingly complicated as SSL certs and other pieces need to updated as well. We are considering migrating to SirsiDynix SAAS platform. For a future survey, it might be useful to ask if the site is locally hosted or hosted by the ILS vendor. I'm curious to know how this trend is evolving. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

It is too early to opine on the change in service over the last year as Symphony was only implemented in March 2016. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I absolutely adore [...] employees. Wow. We would not have an ILS if it hadn't been for this consortium and their great set up for implementation and technical support for all IT issues. Thank you [...]! (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We rely on our state-wide consortium for most of the support and management of our ILS and Discovery Service. Ebsco and SirsiDynix have collaborated to integrate their services, which is a big advantage to us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

For support, I really don't know the answer because we send our questions to the consortium and they deal with the vendor (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sirsi migration from Millennium was problematic. Tech support is weak. EDI integration is poor. Geez (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

None (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The company that support ILS in UTM is competent, supportive and reliable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The All wales Library Management System is already in operation in North Wales and will be rolled out to South Wales over the next few years. [...] will be one of the first of the South wales Authorities to be put on this system (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)

Our consortium is migrating into another consortium using the same ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are considering migrating to a cheaper system which would provide most of the functionality of Symphony. First on my list will be Apollo, and I plan to reach out to them this year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There have been bugs in the software, not unwanted features but actual bugs, that have gone for years without being addressed. Our consortia tells us that not enough people have complained about them therefore they do not get on the "to-be-fixed" list. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We experienced quite a large number of initial troubles when implementing our new LMS in early 2016. This was in part due to data corruption and incompatible records. Sirsi Dynix have worked hard and effectively to remedy many of those problems (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

SirsiDynix continues to provide enhancements and solutions in line with our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our library collection consists of only electronic resources obtained through the LOUIS consortium. We are slowly acquiring open source items. Since we do not have print items, we use EDS as the main patron access point on the library website. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Please note that we are part of a consortium and our options are limited to what the consortium provides. I suspect much of the problems with the ILS are actually attributable to our consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are put of an [...] that work together to choose the best ILS for multiple college sizes. Ontario Colleges Library Service hosts and does most of our support. [...] will contact SirsiDynix as needed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Library moved to Sirsi Saas production servers in December 2014. Company is very responsive to server operating issues. Help desk support has moved to primarily online and makes it difficult to obtain immediate assistance from support. Working through online help desk helps them keep track of tickets and reoccurring system issues but there have been numerous instances where technician(s) simply fail to respond for days. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Have been slow to transition from WorldCat Local to WorldCat Discovery due to not all functionality had been moved over to WCD. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Reporting stats are very crucial. Reporting module is not user friendly and has different results each time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

I'm the automation coordinator for the [..] and oversee the library collections for 12 High Schools, 18 Middle Schools, 80 Elementaries and 6 other types and 1 professional library. We have been with this company since 1989. At the time, few automation software companies that could handle such a large union catalog for multiple sites were available. Over the years, we have done a lot of customization. In some instances, there are many components we don't use. I would have liked a friendlier look for elementary schools. Because this company is so large, they do keep up with trends happening in the automation field. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Symphony has given us much more flexibility and information than our last ILS. We love it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our Library Name has changed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Direct contact with the vendor is done through our consortium network office, as is any contract negotiation. Any open source products that might be under consideration would come through our network office. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Solid ILS just not geared for schools out of the box. It takes manipulation to get it to do what we need it to do at the campus level. The OPAC is not easily configured for student use. It is possible, just not easy. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We feel the ILS system we have would work better if it were more Windows oriented in the sense that we could open the 'Notes' field from a patrons account page rather than having to back out to another page. The system can be clunky and feel outdated in that respect. As well as with billing, it would be grand if it were set up to enter the amount paid and the system deducts it smoothly from what is owing. Rather than having to apply coin to each individual charge. Very time consuming and cumbersome. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Because we are a part of a consortium our system does not have much functionality. It's one of the trade offs, the system itself is a fraction of the cost of going our own way, but it is also less functional to the same fraction. Also, as a number of libraries are involved and we cannot talk directly to Sirsi some issues take a very long time to resolve. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We migrated to a new platform last year (SirsiDynix's BLUEcloud Campus Suite with EDS integration) and considered both WMS and Alma/Primo seriously. Given the particular needs of our library, which has complex physical collections and specialized digital collections, the only solution that would work well for us was BLUECloud Campus with EDS integration. Two of its advantages were the ability to migrate "bound with" records efficiently (which WMS had trouble with) and the ability to incorporate full metadata from key EBSCO databases (which Primo didn't allow for). Both WMS and Alma would have been better for staff in some ways, and there is significant frustration with Symphony's limitations but, all considered, the BLUEcloud/EDS combo best met our needs. Our choice was a bet on the ability of SirsiDynix to fulfill its long-term vision for the BLUEcloud suite, based partially on the demonstrated willingness of SirsiDynix to collaborate well with other companies like EBSCO and OpenAthens. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our ILS Vendor is very open to customer feedback and involvement in product development which is very much appreciated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Espanola transitioned from Winnebago Spectrum to SirsiDynix Symphony during 2016, thus we are still in the process of correcting and ensuring completeness of each record - it's a process (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall our satisfaction level with Sirsi Dynix is good, however, we are somewhat unhappy with our OPAC presentation and its functionality with end users. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would only consider open source as part of the consortium. Our parent organization strongly discourages the use of open source for software we manage directly. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ILS