Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Voyager


2017 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction89 5 8 10 19 12 24 11 75.586
ILS Functionality88 2 4 6 17 16 9 17 14 3 45.555
Print Functionality86 3 3 8 11 28 27 6 76.907
Electronic Functionality89 7 12 12 10 14 8 11 11 3 1 43.804
Company Satisfaction89 3 1 10 12 20 21 20 2 76.226
Support Satisfaction88 1 2 4 5 10 22 22 18 4 66.287
Support Improvement87 1 1 4 8 43 7 11 9 3 55.515
Company Loyalty89 3 1 2 3 9 8 15 10 16 22 96.477
Open Source Interest87 15 14 14 4 11 5 7 7 8 2 03.403

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS89 6269.66%
Considering new Interface89 1213.48%
System Installed on time?89 8494.38%

Average Collection size: 2772996

TypeCount
Public0
Academic65
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00021
[4] 250,001-1,000,00025
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[6] over 10,000,0014


Statistics according to type and size categories

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

VoyagerallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1175.58 335.55304.73266.0800004
ILSFunctionality1165.47 335.64294.79265.3800004
PrintFunctionality1176.81 336.36306.43267.1900004
ElectronicFunctionality1153.58 323.47303.07263.7700004
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1126.03 305.83295.34266.6200004
CompanyLoyalty1166.38 336.27296.07266.9200004



2016 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction117 2 4 3 9 13 16 29 21 17 3 65.586
ILS Functionality116 2 3 5 14 11 18 23 20 12 8 65.476
Print Functionality117 1 3 3 6 7 19 31 31 16 76.817
Electronic Functionality115 9 10 26 17 9 19 13 7 4 1 23.583
Company Satisfaction115 1 3 7 6 6 17 16 28 27 4 75.987
Support Satisfaction112 3 2 5 5 11 13 16 22 26 9 86.037
Support Improvement112 2 1 1 9 22 48 7 8 9 5 55.125
Company Loyalty116 2 2 2 5 12 14 13 30 11 25 76.387
Open Source Interest117 26 13 10 7 14 17 7 11 6 6 03.564

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS117 7866.67%
Considering new Interface117 1815.38%
System Installed on time?117 10690.60%

Average Collection size: 3728028

TypeCount
Public0
Academic90
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,00022
[4] 250,001-1,000,00032
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0018



2015 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction115 1 1 4 6 13 19 33 16 21 1 65.756
ILS Functionality115 1 2 8 11 23 29 17 18 6 65.906
Print Functionality113 1 4 7 8 19 25 32 17 86.907
Electronic Functionality113 1 17 16 11 17 18 21 6 4 2 64.054
Company Satisfaction113 3 7 12 21 21 22 19 8 76.056
Support Satisfaction113 2 5 5 13 17 14 21 30 6 86.087
Support Improvement111 1 2 4 13 53 14 16 4 4 55.385
Company Loyalty115 5 2 3 5 4 16 19 22 17 22 76.277
Open Source Interest109 24 11 10 12 7 13 6 10 10 6 03.673

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS120 8268.33%
Considering new Interface120 1714.17%
System Installed on time?120 10789.17%

Average Collection size: 2289918

TypeCount
Public0
Academic85
School1
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00021
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00026
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0017



2014 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction149 2 3 5 9 15 16 38 37 22 2 65.786
ILS Functionality148 5 6 12 16 20 33 31 20 5 65.666
Print Functionality148 4 3 8 25 39 56 13 87.117
Electronic Functionality145 6 16 21 17 18 16 24 19 6 2 64.174
Company Satisfaction147 2 1 3 12 11 27 23 38 24 6 75.936
Support Satisfaction147 1 3 6 8 12 24 30 32 22 9 75.906
Support Improvement146 1 2 6 5 22 65 18 11 8 8 55.235
Company Loyalty149 10 5 9 5 11 26 12 26 27 18 85.666
Open Source Interest145 35 26 14 7 15 18 12 9 3 6 03.022

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS151 10267.55%
Considering new Interface151 2617.22%
System Installed on time?151 13388.08%

Average Collection size: 1939716

TypeCount
Public0
Academic128
School0
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,00032
[4] 250,001-1,000,00036
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00029
[6] over 10,000,0015



2013 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction112 1 1 3 6 7 11 21 42 19 1 76.157
ILS Functionality112 2 4 3 6 16 24 32 22 3 76.207
Print Functionality112 2 4 4 12 31 43 16 87.318
Electronic Functionality111 1 6 14 17 7 17 21 18 7 3 64.805
Company Satisfaction110 1 2 3 7 7 11 21 42 14 2 76.027
Support Satisfaction110 5 2 5 10 14 26 31 15 2 75.866
Support Improvement109 2 1 8 7 56 10 12 9 4 55.395
Company Loyalty110 2 1 2 8 5 15 23 24 17 13 76.216
Open Source Interest110 27 12 13 6 9 15 12 9 4 3 03.283

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS114 5951.75%
Considering new Interface114 3026.32%
System Installed on time?114 10390.35%

Average Collection size: 1534747

TypeCount
Public0
Academic85
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00021
[3] 100,001-250,00025
[4] 250,001-1,000,00029
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00024
[6] over 10,000,0013



2012 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction171 4 1 8 11 13 21 37 55 20 1 75.756
ILS Functionality171 1 3 8 15 10 29 28 43 30 4 75.816
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction169 3 3 6 11 16 22 29 54 25 75.766
Support Satisfaction168 4 5 5 13 17 23 33 45 22 1 75.576
Support Improvement162 8 5 1 4 28 65 15 24 10 2 55.015
Company Loyalty170 7 3 6 12 12 33 20 38 14 25 75.816
Open Source Interest167 32 17 19 16 9 32 16 12 5 9 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS172 8448.84%
Considering new Interface172 5632.56%
System Installed on time?172 15489.53%

Average Collection size: 1439754

TypeCount
Public0
Academic136
School0
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,00053
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00030
[6] over 10,000,0014



2011 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction154 1 4 17 5 18 27 56 22 4 76.077
ILS Functionality152 1 8 16 7 16 26 44 31 3 76.007
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction154 1 1 4 10 12 16 22 54 27 7 76.217
Support Satisfaction152 3 7 11 5 18 23 47 30 8 76.167
Support Improvement149 2 2 4 7 13 62 16 19 15 9 55.525
Company Loyalty154 5 2 12 10 30 17 34 24 20 76.107
Open Source Interest152 25 16 16 16 12 21 17 13 10 6 03.794

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS154 6038.96%
Considering new Interface154 6240.26%
System Installed on time?154 13990.26%

Average Collection size: 1940682

TypeCount
Public0
Academic117
School0
Consortium2
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,00036
[4] 250,001-1,000,00051
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00023
[6] over 10,000,0016



2010 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction123 4 3 10 25 25 42 13 1 76.016
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction123 1 5 5 11 18 30 39 13 1 75.906
Support Satisfaction120 4 4 4 11 21 32 23 20 1 65.796
Support Improvement118 3 3 6 11 52 14 18 11 55.335
Company Loyalty121 2 3 4 5 13 27 15 28 17 7 75.776
Open Source Interest120 11 16 16 14 9 18 9 8 9 10 54.074

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS124 4032.26%
Considering new Interface124 6451.61%
System Installed on time?124 10685.48%

Average Collection size: 1095582

TypeCount
Public1
Academic97
School0
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00021
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00037
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00017
[6] over 10,000,0012



2009 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction164 8 10 9 31 39 41 22 4 75.916
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction162 1 1 7 12 17 23 35 45 19 2 75.736
Support Satisfaction162 1 3 11 15 12 20 26 44 25 5 75.726
Support Improvement153 2 5 8 8 18 54 17 17 18 6 55.275
Company Loyalty160 11 5 5 11 14 22 20 42 17 13 75.516
Open Source Interest164 24 19 23 11 8 23 16 19 12 9 03.974

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS164 3118.90%
Considering new Interface164 8954.27%
System Installed on time?164 14286.59%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 6 5 8 5 23 21 17 2 66.016
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction87 1 1 5 9 5 16 15 23 11 1 75.596
Support Satisfaction87 1 4 3 10 5 13 19 14 14 4 65.576
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty87 5 3 10 7 7 12 11 13 13 6 75.145
Open Source Interest86 10 7 10 6 4 14 7 10 4 14 54.665

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS87 1921.84%
Considering new Interface87 4045.98%
System Installed on time?87 8395.40%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Voyager Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction83 1 3 12 3 17 19 22 5 1 75.516
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction110 1 5 9 14 13 17 24 21 5 1 64.935
Support Satisfaction108 4 5 9 13 14 14 18 19 10 2 74.885
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty105 16 2 11 13 9 25 9 8 6 6 54.155
Open Source Interest107 10 8 12 12 13 12 15 12 6 7 64.354

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS111 2421.62%
Considering new Interface111 5347.75%
System Installed on time?111 10.90%




2017 : gen: 5.58 company 6.22 loyalty 6.47 support 6.28

2016 : gen: 5.58 company 5.98 loyalty 6.38 support 6.03

2015 : gen: 5.75 company 6.05 loyalty 6.27 support 6.08

2014 : gen: 5.78 company 5.93 loyalty 5.66 support 5.90

2013 : gen: 6.15 company 6.02 loyalty 6.21 support 5.86

2012 : gen: 5.75 company 5.76 loyalty 5.81 support 5.57

2011 : gen: 6.07 company 6.21 loyalty 6.10 support 6.16

2010 : gen: 6.01 company 5.90 loyalty 5.77 support 5.79

2009 : gen: 5.91 company 5.73 loyalty 5.51 support 5.72

2008 : gen: 6.01 company 5.59 loyalty 5.14 support 5.57

2007 : gen: 5.51 company 4.93 loyalty 4.15 support 4.88

Comments

We do the vast amount of our own Voyager support, we rarely need to contact Ex Libris as we know more about Voyager and our own installation than most of their support staff do anymore. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Note: figure given for items in the collection represents print and av materialsat this location of [...] . There are 80K+ ebooks and other e-items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would like to migrate to a next-gen ILS, but budget restrictions make it highly unlikely this will happen in the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our ILS is deployed through the [...] consortium. We receive excellent support from [...]. Our ILS allows us to have a robust and responsive statewide resource sharing module/ [...] is looking to upgrade the consortial ILS - task force is examining options now. We pay for and maintain our own discovery layer. If [...] offers us another discovery system we will assess that, but are happy with Ebsco and its attention to details. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Current ILS is client/server and would like to migrate to a web -based system. Cost is the main issue for us that is why LibraryWorld is listed as a possible vendor. We have limited staff and IT knowledge so I don't know if open source would be possible for us. WMS is listed as a vendor simply because most of the other institutions in our consortium migrated to WMS last year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

To clarify some responses above: As to why I left the question about the ILS' effectiveness in managing our electronic resources blank, we have only 8 database subscriptions currently, so we don't really need to use the ILS to manage them. Also, we are very satisfied with the company overall and the direction they are taking their products. Unfortunately, we can no longer afford the products they offer. Finally, on the whole the customer support for Voyager is maybe slightly worse than previously, which is why I gave it a 4 (thinking a 5 rating would be "about the same"). I'm beginning to think that they're putting more resources into Alma support and taking some away from Voyager support. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ex Libris has stopped working on Voyager except basic updates. They are working on other products from takeovers/mergers. That has been very disappointing for us. EBSCO has stopped working on federated tool EHIS - they have said they can't add certain large new acquisitions (Sage journals) - and that we should get Discovery tool where it DOES work. Don't like pressure. They also have large preferred treatment for their own databases - for that reason would look elsewhere first. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our ILS has been effectively disabled for about a year and a half, which is why I can't give the vendor higher scores. They apparently failed to inform the Army powers-that-be about an update to PRIMO that involved changing it's IP and then the information security folks shut everything down. So SFX is the only thing we have that works as it is supposed to (PRIMO has limited functionality because it can't talk to Voyager), but ExLibris customer support has been very responsive to all of our other issues, and if we could approval to transition to Alma, we'd probably do it before anyone changed their mind. Given the extreme paranoia our Information Security folks seem to have about everything that isn't .mil or .gov, I doubt we'd ever get approval for open source anything. Just yesterday I had to write up a justification for why they should unblock the Directory of Open Access Journals. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Some are not satisfied with PRIMO as a discovery layer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our small institution has had considerable long-term issues with our ILS and Discovery Service vendors unwilling to cooperate with one another. The lack of cooperation extends beyond those vendors and includes the various publishers and database platforms who integrate content, usually poorly, into the Discovery Service. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The library had purchased Primo in 2015. However, Ex Libris was not able to meet the library's security needs by the deadline as stated in the contract. The contract was not reviewed after the first year and Primo was never fully implemented. Once Ex Libris has completed the FedRamp process, the library may consider purchasing Primo again. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Consortium plans to migrate to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We're currently under contract to move to EX Libris Alma/Primo, which I'm not thrilled about because of my experiences with Voyager, including their customer service. However, we're part of a large consortium, and must switch as a group. Implementation is scheduled for 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We'd be interested in an open source solution, but don't have the infrastructure or personnel to do that. Also, we are currently being forced off of our old ILS before Folio will be available. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

The ILS is overly complicated for what it needs to do. I would implement something much less complicated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We've been using Voyager almost 15 years and past couple years it has just been running on a server. We haven't had any contacts to customer support and any ILS -support issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We keep looking at the OCLC WMS product, but it would be significantly more expensive than our current Voyager so we haven't seriously considered switching. The price difference is surprising. OCLC is just pricing itself out of reach of small academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We presently have good relations with both ExLibris. We would like to see how the field of Next Generation ILS's develop before making any move. The loss of InTota phase 2 does change a bit our approach to assessing next-gen systems. Since the merger of ExLibris, it appears that former Serials Solns products don't get the same level of response by helpdesk staff. Problems persist longer before a fix is enacted. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Voyager is a legacy system, and we are ready to move to a system with modern features that will handle our e-materials better and integrate more seamlessly with discovery tools. We are waiting on funding. As soon as that is in place, the RFP process will begin. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Ex Libris caters to large institutions with large budgets. They are not good for smaller schools with fewer staff and less money. Primo or Primo Central cannot show results of just the Ebsco databases/database due to fight between Ebsco and Ex Libris. A lot of the free resources in Primo Central that offer content are half full text half not full text. If you turn it on, you get a bunch of hits that aren't actually there when you try to retrieve. Ex Libris could at least separate Primo Central content by full-text/not full-text. Support for Ex Libris products is practically non-existent for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are in the middle of migration to Alma and Primo, which we selected because that's what the [...] selected. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

All university libraries, polytechnic libraries and many special libraries (total number more than 40) are preparing the acquisition of a new ILS. The goal is to launch the new system in 2018. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Voyager is a workhorse and does the main functions of an ILS but is showing its age, and doesn't do more up to date functions for management of eresources, user experience, etc. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Although satisfied with current product, I am really looking forward to migrating to a so-called next-gen system that handles both print and e-resources effectively. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Not at all likely if we go on our own; but we are planning on consortiu, and we might consider a supported FOLIO -- however, very unlikely that they will have enough functionality anytime soon and within our timeframe (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

As need for print management continues to dwindle, the amount we're willing to pay for a system that does just print management must accordingly change. e-resource management is our number 1 priority. Bywater's hosted Koha will provide more functionality and support than our current system and vendor at less than a quarter of the cost. If FOLIO comes to fruition, it will drastically change everything about print and e-resource management allowing most libraries to spend more of our budgets on content, programs, and services instead of systems, and that's the way it should be. Companies like iii & exlibris as they're organized now won't be able to exist any longer, and that's also the way it should be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are tied to state system procurement processes and consortial decision-making in order to migrate to a new system. We woefully need to migrate to a new system and it is taking a very long time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are in the process of transitioning to ALMA with he [...]. Projected to go live in May 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

I listed the vendor products we reviewed. We selected Ex Libris Alma/Primo and will migrate Summer 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

All contracts and customer service requests are handled by our consortium, [...]. Some questions above may not be applicable for our library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We would very much like to implement a discovery layer, but as a very small (600 FTE), tuition-driven liberal arts college, we simply don't have the funds to do so at this time. We have been a Voyager library since 1998 and have looked in to WorldShare Management, but even accounting for some discounting for size, the switch to a different ILS is cost prohibitive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are currently using Summon as our discovery service. If Summon doesn't work well after we move over to Alma, the library will consider Primo as a replacement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are long overdue to upgrade to a new ILS, but lack of funding is a problem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are currently compiling a specification for our ideal ILS, not because we are definitely thinking of changing, but because our current ILS was installed in 1998 and it seems like good practice to review our requirements at this time (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The answer to the open source question is a reflection on the state of readiness of the main open source LSP on the market (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Or Alma migration is on schedule for May 2017 go-live. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have Voyager 9.1.1 via our consortium. It's a "dead" legacy product; rarely significantly updated and has few new features or improvements. It is what it is. Given our state's higher ed (and general statewide) budgetary problems, it's also all we'll have for the foreseeable future. Sad times for our statewide consortium, public universities & libraries. Our library has purchased zero (literally) books with appropriated funds during the last 3 years (have spent maybe $20k on monographs from other available funds --- not even treading water on Ref titles), so not sure how much a substandard (or shiny new) ILS matters at this point. We are plowing available money to maintain full-text aggregated db subscriptions; cancelling many journals. Our students, citizens and taxpayers are the losers. Oh well, we'll dutifully and responsibly continue warehousing our old "stuff" as the world marches on... (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Ex Libris implemented our current ILS on schedule according to the terms of our contract, but incompletely and not without a measure of drama. We have found support to be lacking, and are currently in the midst of renegotiations. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

During our time using Voyager, we have directed our ILS support issues to the largest library in our consortium; therefore, it is difficult to answer your question about satisfaction with Ex Libris support services because we typically have not dealt directly with Ex Libris on the Voyager product. I rated our customer support in the last year as a bit lower because during implementation of our new system (Alma and Primo) recently, there has been some confusion within Ex Libris about authentication processes. They changed their policy on authentication prior to working out the technical and customer service implications of this policy change. This disappointed us. Voyager has been a stable product and served us well for roughly 18 years, but it is time for us to advance to a product that manages electronic resources and that has stronger reporting functions. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Anuual circulation of tangible items 5,500 per calendar year as of 2016. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Your form lists Clarion University's current automation system as being Alma/Primo. That is not actually the case. We[...] are emgaged in the migration process, we expect to go live in April/May 2017. While the migration process has gone well, my hat is off to Ex Libris regarding the process and support system they have developed and use to facilitate migration, I can't answer most of your questions from the Alma/Primo perspective. Hence, I have changed the form to reflect what we are currently using, Voyager / EBSCO Discovery. Also, collection count only reflects physical items. E-books adds another 184,427 as of June 2016. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

The institution has just announced that has chosen Symphony from SirsiDynix to provide a collaborative platform along with the [...]. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

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

ILS