Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for WorldShare Management Services


2017 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 2 1 2 1 3 8 27 33 19 5 76.447
ILS Functionality101 2 1 3 2 3 12 18 28 28 4 76.437
Print Functionality100 1 2 3 5 9 7 22 33 18 87.008
Electronic Functionality100 2 1 3 2 7 8 19 27 24 7 76.397
Company Satisfaction100 2 1 1 2 1 9 18 28 22 16 76.827
Support Satisfaction101 3 1 2 2 1 10 17 26 25 14 76.687
Support Improvement99 4 2 3 10 24 17 12 17 10 55.916
Company Loyalty98 5 2 3 4 2 10 9 19 21 23 96.537
Open Source Interest101 40 12 18 7 6 9 2 1 2 4 02.071

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS103 76.80%
Considering new Interface103 65.83%
System Installed on time?103 9188.35%

Average Collection size: 350691

TypeCount
Public1
Academic79
School2
Consortium1
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00035
[3] 100,001-250,00025
[4] 250,001-1,000,00031
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0006
[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.

WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1346.72 516.78416.8376.2930011
ILSFunctionality1346.57 506.78426.4576.1430011
PrintFunctionality1357.26 517.35427.2176.7130011
ElectronicFunctionality1336.45 506.58426.5576.0030011
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1347.01 517.24426.9377.2930011
CompanyLoyalty1336.92 517.12427.0776.7120011



2016 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction134 2 1 3 5 4 9 20 40 33 17 76.727
ILS Functionality134 1 2 4 5 5 11 18 43 34 11 76.577
Print Functionality135 1 2 1 1 8 20 30 50 22 87.268
Electronic Functionality133 3 2 2 7 6 12 18 35 38 10 86.457
Company Satisfaction135 1 5 3 4 7 20 25 43 27 87.068
Support Satisfaction134 1 2 5 2 3 7 17 29 43 25 87.018
Support Improvement128 2 1 6 7 29 11 17 23 32 96.637
Company Loyalty133 7 2 4 1 4 13 7 19 32 44 96.928
Open Source Interest132 56 24 21 6 4 8 7 2 1 3 01.751

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS135 85.93%
Considering new Interface135 85.93%
System Installed on time?135 12693.33%

Average Collection size: 350815

TypeCount
Public4
Academic102
School1
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00050
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction94 2 1 2 10 12 28 30 9 86.947
ILS Functionality94 2 2 3 7 9 19 23 20 9 76.437
Print Functionality94 2 1 8 14 24 29 16 87.177
Electronic Functionality93 3 1 1 6 11 15 20 29 7 86.587
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 3 3 12 20 34 19 87.318
Support Satisfaction93 3 1 6 3 14 17 31 18 87.088
Support Improvement89 1 2 9 18 14 16 14 15 56.427
Company Loyalty92 2 1 1 4 5 4 6 17 22 30 97.138
Open Source Interest92 45 17 14 2 1 5 3 2 3 01.511

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS95 33.16%
Considering new Interface95 44.21%
System Installed on time?95 8993.68%

Average Collection size: 424304

TypeCount
Public2
Academic75
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00022
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 2 1 3 10 28 22 4 76.887
ILS Functionality71 1 2 3 8 12 31 11 3 76.517
Print Functionality70 1 1 1 4 8 15 33 7 87.218
Electronic Functionality70 1 1 1 7 10 20 23 7 86.937
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 1 1 6 15 34 11 87.398
Support Satisfaction71 2 1 3 8 19 18 20 97.448
Support Improvement69 2 2 13 9 14 17 12 86.867
Company Loyalty73 1 1 1 2 1 4 15 23 25 97.598
Open Source Interest71 36 15 3 9 4 1 2 1 01.280

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS74 34.05%
Considering new Interface74 68.11%
System Installed on time?74 6689.19%

Average Collection size: 444490

TypeCount
Public4
Academic56
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00018
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 2 1 5 2 10 6 5 76.777
ILS Functionality31 3 3 2 4 5 8 3 3 75.816
Print Functionality30 1 1 2 4 2 6 8 6 86.807
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 4 2 1 7 8 6 86.687
Company Satisfaction30 1 5 3 3 8 10 97.378
Support Satisfaction31 1 1 4 4 7 7 7 77.007
Support Improvement31 1 10 3 4 7 6 56.777
Company Loyalty30 1 1 1 4 1 2 7 13 97.338
Open Source Interest30 15 3 1 4 2 4 1 01.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 13.13%
Considering new Interface32 13.13%
System Installed on time?32 2475.00%

Average Collection size: 260399

TypeCount
Public2
Academic25
School1
Consortium0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,00013
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction21 1 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 76.387
ILS Functionality21 2 2 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.486
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 86.768
Support Satisfaction21 2 3 1 1 4 3 7 96.627
Support Improvement20 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 96.707
Company Loyalty21 2 1 1 4 5 8 96.958
Open Source Interest21 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 12.522

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS22 00.00%
Considering new Interface22 00.00%
System Installed on time?22 1777.27%

Average Collection size: 316875

TypeCount
Public0
Academic21
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0006
[3] 100,001-250,0009
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 2 4 3 1 77.107
ILS Functionality10 1 1 2 2 3 1 75.205
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 2 1 6 98.209
Support Satisfaction10 1 1 3 5 98.209
Support Improvement9 2 1 2 4 97.568
Company Loyalty10 1 1 3 5 98.009
Open Source Interest10 5 3 2 00.701

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

Average Collection size: 392232

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010


0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2010

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2009

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2008

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2007

2017 : gen: 6.44 company 6.82 loyalty 6.53 support 6.68

2016 : gen: 6.72 company 7.06 loyalty 6.92 support 7.01

2015 : gen: 6.94 company 7.31 loyalty 7.13 support 7.08

2014 : gen: 6.88 company 7.39 loyalty 7.59 support 7.44

2013 : gen: 6.77 company 7.37 loyalty 7.33 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.38 company 6.76 loyalty 6.95 support 6.62

2011 : gen: 7.10 company 8.20 loyalty 8.00 support 8.20

Comments

The major problem with the vendor is the enormous amount of documentation that needs to be checked. With the ILS, the major weakness is the reserve module, rather ineffective for managing print materials: creating pull lists is very cumbersome. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We purchased WMS Discovery. We also joined Navigator, the shared catalog product. Though they are both owned by OCLC they are not compatible - something we were NOT told at time of purchase. Further, we purchased the enhanced analytics system, but recently learned they FORGOT to install it. This was not evident because the options controlled by that system were simply invisible. We received a refund for one year of the purchase price of this product last week. Our director, who only uses the public interface, really likes the catalog. The rest of us HATE it. It lacks simple functionality in several areas, is not intuitive for users, has serious ranking and display issues, and about the only good things we can say are that it looks pretty and is cloud based, thus eliminating the need for backups. We also experience downtime nearly once a week. There has been more downtime with this product (even over the first month) than we experienced in the 22 years we were with our former ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I like being part of a membership-driven, non-profit corporation for a library system. It has to be beholden to its members, and wants to be. This system is a lot less work to operate, and provides greater opportunities for discovery of resources and the management of resources. Overall, it is far less expensive than systems with similar features, we are saving quite a bit over what we used to expend on our previous system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Number of items includes electronic resources that we don't own but to which we subscribe. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Migrating to WMS effective December 2016 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

WMS catalog and patron interface are very good, circulation is decent, but acquisition still lags in terms of defaults and workflow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

WMS best quality and potential is more connection between tasks and functions, e.g., cataloging done at acquisitions, item additions or deletions are immediately reflected in various OCLC products, etc. However, adding print periodicals to the discovery knowledge base can be an arduous task. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The online catalog is cumbersome to use (with the Discovery Platform) and requires many extra steps for users to retrieve information. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

OCLC promises a lot but is slow to deliver. And they over promised features during the sales pitch that weren't ready when we were told they would be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We really like most of WorldShare Library System -- except Discovery. It really needs improvement, and we appreciate that OCLC is working hard on that. We also appreciate the work on the Acquisitions module. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

WorldCat provides open access to a number of collections available on the internet. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We use OCLC WMS with WorldCat Discovery. We find OCLC to be very responsive when we have questions and problems. They respond to feedback from the user community and genuinely seem to care about the needs of their customers. While we would like some teaks made to the Discovery interface and to WMS, it meets our needs and we are happy with it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We stand on precipice of implementing the new OCLC "Discovery" system trembling in eager excitement.... (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

40,000 print (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is possible that our consortium will make a statewide ILS decision within the next 24 months. Should that occur and it is different from the one we now host, we would defer to the consortium's choice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The development of WMS has been slow and often frustrating. We receive many complaints about WorldCat Discovery. We we bring these to OCLC, all too often the answer is that they are working on it but have no date for implementing a solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC (not unlike most if not all vendors in this space) seems to be significantly behind in the development of products that fully address the needs of libraries. In OCLC's case they are fairly new to the type of development that is required for their ILS product. They seem to have been largely a service oriented company with a very narrow scope of service, and are now trying to build the Swiss Army Knife of ILS's similar to others. While OCLC has what I percieve as one of the best integrations of service and development, their development side is fairly young and under-resourced. They also don't seem to have a unified vision in their development, suffering the same problem that libraries are in transitioning from siloed functions to the intergated and work flow processes that require high quality and constant communication between divisions of development. They have also suffered, in some cases, the launch of a product before it is actually ready for live use. Their attempt to rely on crowd-sourced developed solutions has not panned out as well as I expect they thought it would, largely due to the overworked nature of most budding developers in libraries. Most libraries just don't have the personel free to do more than duct-tape and bailing wire development. Librarians are not developers for the most part, so the idea of an open-source-like community is not as effective. The community of those type of librarians is too small to be of significant quality impact. They charge significantly less than other vendors as I understand it. Maybe they should increase the price incrementally to help resource the development of the product with the right people and technology integration. Lastly, they have had significant turn-over in the last two years, making it hard to believe that there is a solid and consistent vision being developed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been extremely satisfied with WMS. It is a huge improvement in terms of functionality from our old ILS. We talked to a few WMS libraries prior to implementation who had significant complaints about the system, but we simply have not encountered any of those issues. The migration and implementation went off without a hitch and both staff and patrons have been very happy with the change. There has definitely been a learning curve, particularly with Acquisitions; and our acquisitions and cataloging workflow underwent a total change, but the effect has been a more streamlined and efficient process resulting in materials getting onto the shelf more than twice as fast as before. I'm sure as we continue to learn the system we will find some challenges to overcome, but thus far we are pleased the WMS product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

It's very difficult to get a usable report from WMS, so my guess at collection size is just that: a wild guess. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Good riddance to iii's Millennium. It feels like we're in the 21st century now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Many enhancements are still needed to make this a competitive ILS. The pricing may be competitive, but the cost in staff time should be considered as it increases considerably in all areas from circulation to technical services where automated processes in the past must now be completed in manual procedures or work-a-rounds. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

WMS is not as mature a product as we would have liked for a comprehensive mid-size university library. The Discovery search is still in Beta and does not meet the needs of the majority of our users which are undergraduates. The reporting options (Report Authoring) is the best I've seen in any system, is robust and easy-to-use but comes as an extra cost. Being based on WorldCat has had its advantages (access to worldwide holdings, helps our patron-drive acquisitions approach) as well as its issues (trying to overcome that massive amount of holdings to find relevant items). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC documentation is incomplete, irrelevant, long-winded and too technical, there is not currently any way to add bulk records for electronic resources or reliably and quickly see results for new collections through the discovery layer. Therefore, as most of our resources are not available in the Worldcat catalogue and cannot be added. There are dozens of overlapping platforms, add-ins and tools all requiring different logins. Electronic holdings are attached to print records as 'additional editions' effectively rendering them invisible to users. Support responses are slow. Would not attempt to install and run an open source ILS without in-house coding skills and hosted options might be expensive. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

While we're still smoothing out some rough edges with how our new ILS interoperates with our RFID equipment and suppliers of electronic resources, etc, and some features are not yet as developed as we'd like (e.g. reporting and print notifications), we are nonetheless happy with our new ILS, and it represents a quantum leap from our old ILS. In particular, having a cloud-based, multi-tenanted architecture means that we enjoy regular incremental updates in a way which is pain-free, which was unimaginable with our old system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The print holding are 77,000. ebooks holding are 185,000. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Library collection number includes all formats (print, electronic, micro etc...) (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have just migrated to Worldshare in 2015 and there is WorldCat Diiscovery included in our migration (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC WMS requires very little maintenance on the part of our library which frees up our time to focus on other projects such as enterprise data governance and metadata management for our organization's KM initiatives. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Figure for items in the library's collection is for total catalogued print stock only including journal titles but not holdings. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC WorldShare Management Service has been cost effective for our institution based on our current budget. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We've been pleased with improvements to the acquisitions module of WMS in the past year. Our feedback has been responded to in many areas. Downtime is still an issue, particularly with the public catalogue and e-resource linking. With a hosted catalogue it is difficult to identify where problems are occurring. After hours support has not been as good as hoped. This has improved recently. We are still waiting on some critical reporting functions for acquisitions. Reporting for circulation and collections has improved considerably over the past few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

A year ago, we were planning on migrating to Alma as part of the CLIC consortium, but since then we have left CLIC and started migrating to OCLC WMS. We will be done with the migration in February, 2017. Because of this, I've provided neutral answers to the survey this year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Overall, we're satisfied with our product (WMS) as it has allowed us to better balance technical responsibilities with public service. However, there are outstanding issues, as with all vendors. One being a more strategic question...occasionally there arises underdeveloped functionality which should be more fully tested before going to production. To me, this signals a priority of meeting deadlines rather than developing an optimal product. An unfortunate effect of this is that at the user level, underdeveloped functionality can undermine confidence in the product by the average user, which can be extended to the library as well. That being said, we are seeing incremental progress in our ILS and it has benefited our staff and our users since implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Note about items: This year's figure includes our DDA ebook collection and our DDA streaming video collection, since these items are represented in our ILS. (Previous years' totals did not include these DDA collections.) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

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

We migrated to WorldShare in November 2016, OCLC have been totally fantastic to work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

So far OCLC has been good, but we are still considered in migration mode so are receiving support from an individual who was responsible for our migration. We have been fairly satisfied with their support for products we already have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We switched to OCLC WMS and the product was new and not fully developed. We have been with OCLC for several years now and the development of the backend systems is not where I would like it to be. Overall the ILS is functional and get the job done but the reporting and customer service this year leave room for improvement. We switched to EDS and will go live in 2017 with that discovery layer. This was prompted by a change in leadership. We are also considering other ILS systems namely Innovative and waiting for the development of an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We had a difficult time with our migration - adequate time and planning is a *must* if you are considering it. Unhappiness with our current system may lead us to move again with end of contract. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

When we first installed Worldshare, it lacked expected functionality. However, it has greatly improved over the past few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have only had our new system live since late November 2016 and we are still "moving in" so to speak. Our difficulty with Vendor support stems from the fact that we are the first Tertiary Library in [...] to purchase this product and the [...] support Office of OCLC is still in development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have spent the past 8 months migrating from III Sierra and Encore Duet to OCLC WMS and Worldshare. We are much happier with the new ILS and the support we receive from OCLC than were were from III. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

ILS