Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2017: An International Survey of Library Automation

by , March 17, 2018.

This eleventh edition of the International Survey of Library Automation presents the latest data on how libraries perceive the effectiveness of the strategic technology systems upon which they depend for their daily operations and to fulfill the expectations of their patrons. This report presents and interprets survey responses gathered from November 2017 through February 2018. The survey focuses primarily on integrated library systems and library services platforms as the applications used to acquire, describe, manage, and provide access to their collections. It also assesses the quality of support given from the respective vendor and probes interest in migrating to new solutions and attitudes toward open source alternatives.

2017 the International Survey of Library Automation
This report is an original publication
of Library Technology Guides.

3,992 libraries completed this year's survey, providing sufficient data to focus the analysis more on each category of library type and size rather than aggregating across all responses. Libraries of different sizes and types bring different expectations to their systems, making it essential to segment survey results to make meaningful comparisons and extract trends. The functional requirements of public, academic, school, and other types of libraries overlap to a certain extent, but in other areas each has distinctive, if not contradictory, functionality. Some of the products represented in the survey have been designed for specific sectors. For those used by multiple types of libraries, the analysis of the survey results by size and type of organization provides an opportunity to observe any differences in satisfaction across these categories.

Some interesting themes can be seen in the analysis of this year's survey results. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Conventional integrated library systems dominate public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also favored proprietary ILS products. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal interesting patterns regarding the newer generation of library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are perceived as less capable for managing print resources than legacy ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need.

I appreciate the time given by all the libraries that responded to the survey this year and in its previous iterations. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to explore as they consider their options regarding these strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a massive aggregation of that kind of data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.

Table of Contents



Introduction

top

Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

The 2017 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 3992 libraries from 87 countries describing experiences with 127 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey results include 1,050 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

View the narrative comments given by responders
Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
Apollo received superlative scores in the small and very small library categories, toping the charts in general satisfaction, overall ILS functionality, print and electronic functionality, customer support, and company loyalty.
ByWater Solutions, providing services for Koha, earned highest scores from mid-sized public libraries across all categories except company loyalty.
Alma from Ex Libris led as the top performer among large and mid-sized academic libraries for general ILS satisfaction, overall functionality, end effectiveness in managing electronic resources. For large and mid-sized academic libraries, Ex Libris received top company loyalty scores for its three products: Alma, Aleph, and Voyager.
Polaris received top rankings among large public libraries for general satisfaction, overall functionality, print resource management, electronic resource management, and company loyalty.
Symphony from SirsiDynix received top scores among large public libraries and large academic libraries for customer support.
OPALS received highest scores in all categories among school and small academic libraries.

Previous editions: 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

top

The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].

Caveats

top

Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

Constructive criticism

top

The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

Survey Response Demographics

top

Collection Size Categories
countMoreLess
386010,000
126910,00150,000
50450,001100,000
603100,001250,000
414250,001500,000
272500,0011,000,000
4121,000,00110,000,000
2110,000,001
111No collection size data
3992Total of Categories

This year, the survey attracted 3,992 responses from libraries in 88 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,985 responses), followed by Canada (246), Australia (179), United Kingdom (124), Spain (55), Sweden (28), and New Zealand (35). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.

While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (55), Argentina (12), Chile (7), Colombia (4), Mexico (1), Venezuela (3), and Uruguay (1). A total of 1,006 of the 3,992 total responses (25.2 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 3,992 responses: ( 2016=4,042 2015=3,453; 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 30,596 responses. The survey was open between November 2, 2017 and February 2, 2018.

There were 111 of the 3.992 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.

Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,641 responses, followed by academic libraries with 1,201. This year 526 responses came from school libraries.

The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:

General Information about the Survey

top

productcountreport
Symphony536ils report
Sierra422ils report
Destiny313ils report
Polaris267ils report
OPALS263ils report
Alma260ils report
Koha -- ByWater Solutions175ils report
WorldShare Management Services142ils report
Apollo134ils report
AGent VERSO133ils report
Horizon133ils report
Voyager119ils report
ALEPH 500116ils report
Library.Solution115ils report
Atriuum115ils report
Millennium94ils report
Evergreen -- Equinox Software93ils report
Koha -- Independent62ils report
Evergreen -- Independent35ils report
Koha -- LibLime35ils report
Spydus34ils report
Libero26ils report
EOS.Web25ils report

The survey attracted responses from libraries using 128 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author.

This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.


Survey Results

top

The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.

Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7% 55.3% 64.6% 67.2%
Alma -- -- -- -- -- 25.0% 16.7% 4.3% 2.3% 2.5% 1.2%
Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9% 0.0%
Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2% 34.9% 28.6% 31.6%
Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8% 18.3% 12.4% 25.2%
Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9% 65.5% 75.0% 71.3%
Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3% 7.9% 7.3% 7.9%
Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.1% 6.4% 10.8% 12.9% 13.4% 19.2%
Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8% 18.0% 18.6% 19.8%
Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.5% 69.2% 66.7% 69.7%
WorldShare Management Services -- -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 4.1% 3.2% 6.0% 7.0%

Note: The percentage of libraries indicating they are considering migration increased for Millennium, Aleph, and Voyager when those companies began promoting their next-generation products.

In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (201), WorldShare Management Services (86), Sierra (74), Koha (77), Symphony (44), and FOLIO (59). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 250 mentioned Koha, 135 mentioned FOLIO, 107 mentioned Evergreen, and 7 mentioned TIND (or Invenio).

The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

Current ILS Responses Shopping Percent Academic Alma WorldShare Polaris Sierra Symphony FOLIO Koha Evergreen Kuali TIND
ALEPH 500 116 78 67.2 62 441108495001
Horizon 133 42 31.6 15 5492422400
Library.Solution 115 29 25.2 4 1234405200
Millennium 94 67 71.3 46 2315533578102
Sierra 422 81 19.2 49 3215276108601
Polaris 267 21 7.9 2 1221102500
Symphony 536 106 19.8 59 301896779500
Voyager 119 83 69.7 68 438081168102
Amlib 7 7 100.0 0 0000400000
Any Product 2018636744459772706

Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

International Perspective

top

The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,006 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

productTotal responsesUnited StatesInternational
All Products3,9922,9861,006
Symphony536371165
Horizon1339340
Sierra42234593
Millennium946628
Polaris29723532
Aleph1185761
Voyager1199623
Alma260154106
Axiell Aurora707
WorldShare Management Services14212418
Absys.Net909

top

Innovative company profile

Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, including Sierra, Polaris, and Virtua. Its Millennium ILS, the predecessor to Sierra continues to be widely used. The company is active in almost all global regions. Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 329 from libraries using Sierra, 297 using Polaris, 94 using Millennium, and 14 using Virtua, or 734 in total. Innovative saw a change of ownership in Mar 2012 and subsequently acquired Polaris (Mar 2014) and VTLS (Jun 2014).

Sierra

top

Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 422 libraries, including 208 academic libraries, 149 publics, 23 consortia and 1 special library. Loyalty scores were weak overall (5.36), with large academics (4.80) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 7.96 in 2012 to 5.17 in 2015, but has increased slightly since, with 5.30 this year. General satisfaction increased slightly over last year up to 6.27 from 6.23. 81 out of the 422 responses (19.9%) indicated interest in moving from Sierra to a new system.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4196.27 756.45756.17565.88736.62596.25135.774235.78
ILSFunctionality4166.39 746.61756.24555.73736.70596.47135.624236.17
PrintFunctionality4197.30 757.48757.32567.43737.27597.17136.004237.17
ElectronicFunctionality4075.20 725.46745.05554.73725.33565.16134.924234.52
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4135.30 725.93755.29574.95715.79584.76134.234234.48
CompanyLoyalty4115.36 735.56755.19564.80706.04585.17125.174234.91

Millennium

top

A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type). The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 455 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. 94 libraries using Millennium responded this year (2016=144; 2015=174; 2014=210; 2013=248; 2012=389; 2011=454). Over the editions of the survey, Millennium has shifted from Innovative's flagship ILS to a legacy product. Out of the 94 libraries which responded this year, 67 indicated interest in moving to a new system. The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra to 71.3% this year. Migration options mentioned included Sierra (33), followed by Alma (23), WorldShare Management Services (15), Koha (8), Symphony (5), and FOLIO (7). While Innovative has seen generally positive results in the majority of Millennium libraries migrating to Sierra, many are also considering competing products.

The number of public libraries using Millennium has declined such the responses recieved in this category to were below the threshold be included in the statistical tables.

Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady to rising ratings from 2007 through 2010, with declining satisfaction scores through last year. This year saw an increase in satisfaction scores across all categories, to about the levels of 2015. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77, 2016: 5.14, 2017: 5.47).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

MillenniumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS925.47 215.33265.73104.2085.504214
ILSFunctionality935.56 215.67265.62104.3085.884214
PrintFunctionality936.89 216.95267.08106.9085.634214
ElectronicFunctionality914.34 204.10264.38103.2085.384214
SatisfactionCustomerSupport924.93 214.67265.04104.3085.504214
CompanyLoyalty924.85 214.24264.77104.1086.634204

Polaris

top

Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 263 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in for general satisfaction (7.51), overall functionality (7.31), print resource management (7.74). Although Polaris led in scores for electronic resource management (6.2) relative to competing products, the overall level of scores in this category of electronic resource management was substantially lower than others.

From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings. From 2012 through 2015, ratings for Polaris have declined in all categories. 2016 ratings in each category saw noticable improvement, with a slight drop again this year.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2637.25 107.80101517.20517.45197.533217.05
ILSFunctionality2617.34 107.60101497.40517.43197.113217.38
PrintFunctionality2637.71 107.90101517.69517.84197.793218.10
ElectronicFunctionality2576.44 106.40101486.55516.59196.052216.24
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2486.90 106.90101426.89496.98186.831216.86
CompanyLoyalty2556.60 106.80101476.63496.86187.393216.19

Virtua

top

This year 14 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. Half (7 out of 14) of these libraries stated interest in migrating to a new system. Though the number of responses was too low for confident results, the ratings for general satisfaction, and company satisfaction were up again this year, increasing to the levels seen in 2013 when scores in all categories was at its peak. This year company loyalty decreased (5.29) from the last year's rating (6.0).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

VirtuaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS147.00 3277.0000000
ILSFunctionality147.00 3277.1400000
PrintFunctionality137.77 3268.1700000
ElectronicFunctionality144.71 3274.0000000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport146.93 3277.0000000
CompanyLoyalty145.29 3275.1400000

Ex Libris company profile

Ex Libris

top

Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform, as well as Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems. This year 253 libraries using Alma, 118 using Aleph, and 119 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 490 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015.

The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be large and complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings as seen in products that serve larger libraries. The perceptions of customer support from Ex Libris are moderate this year.

Alma

top

Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (7.0), overall ILS functionality (6.83), effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.97), and company loyalty (7.15). These libraries rated Alma's print functionality (7.2) below that of Sierra (7.43), Symphony (7.40), and Aleph (7.38, though higher than that of Voyager (6.92). Alma's satisfaction levels for managing print resources have risen each year since 2014. This lower rating for print functionality did not deter libraries from giving Alma the higest rating for overall functionality, reflecing the higher priority in managing electronic resources. Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest in the category of General Satisfaction (6.56), Overall ILS functionality (6.89) and effectiveness in managing electronic resources (6.71).

Alma was not rated as positively among small academic libraries. Its ragings were in the lower third of the pack, except in the category relating to the management of electronic resources, its scores were in the upper third (6.30).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2536.58 546.17946.56667.00000076.57
ILSFunctionality2526.80 546.57936.86666.83000076.57
PrintFunctionality2536.96 546.89946.87667.20000076.86
ElectronicFunctionality2536.67 546.30946.72666.97000077.00
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2516.04 556.04936.09656.26000075.29
CompanyLoyalty2496.72 526.31946.78657.15000077.00

Voyager

top

Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials. Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (6.95) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (3.81). Large academics gave Voyager low ratings in most categories except for company loyalty (6.64). Mid-sized academics showed even stronger loyalty (6.97); small academics indicated a bit weaker company loyalty (6.06). The strong loyalty scores for libraries using Voyager can be seen as a positive indicator for eventual migration to Alma. Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (68.9%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned Alma among the candidate replacements (43). Others mentioned included FOLIO (16), WorldShare Management Services (8), Sierra (8), and Koha (8).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

VoyagerallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1195.66 355.49325.66255.4000002
ILSFunctionality1185.61 345.71325.56255.1600002
PrintFunctionality1166.95 346.38307.33256.9200002
ElectronicFunctionality1173.81 343.82323.91243.6300002
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1186.23 345.97326.50256.1200002
CompanyLoyalty1186.57 356.06326.97256.6400002

Aleph

top

Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.

Ratings in all categories were similar to those given last year, though company loyalty showing an increase. Libraries using Aleph have shown a growing loyalty to Ex Libris from 2007 (4.65) through this year (6.65).

66.1 percent of libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Large academic libraries using Aleph gave positive ratings for company loyalty (7.13). Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (4), WorldShare Management Services (14), FOLIO (9), Sierra (8) and Koha (5). All these statistics can be seen as relatively good news to Ex Libris regarding whether Aleph libraries will stay within the fold and eventually move to Alma.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

ALEPH 500allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1185.79 315.81245.38256.0875.5710066.33
ILSFunctionality1185.47 315.77245.46255.3275.0010064.83
PrintFunctionality1166.97 316.87247.21247.3866.3310067.83
ElectronicFunctionality1153.59 313.58233.30253.4065.1710063.67
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1136.15 316.39225.91256.2065.8310067.50
CompanyLoyalty1136.65 306.47236.35247.1366.6710067.83

OCLC company profile

OCLC

top

OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. Relevant to this report, OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service. The organization also supports multiple legacy ILS products, including Amlib. This year 140 libraries using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey as well as 14 using Amlib.

WorldShare Management Services

top

A total of 140 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) all responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries, except for 5 special libraries, 4 public libraries, 2 schools, and 2 consortia.

WorldShare Management Services did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic library tables. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS saw its most favorable ratings for its management of electronic resources (6.49), second only to Alma (6.71).

From 2012 through 2014 ratings for WorldShare Management Services gradually increased, but have since declined. Company loyalty has declined from 7.44 in 2015 to 6.49 this year.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1406.49 596.85406.0586.3840022
ILSFunctionality1406.50 596.95406.0085.6340022
PrintFunctionality1387.06 587.26396.6486.2540022
ElectronicFunctionality1376.53 576.65406.4586.7540022
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1406.74 597.02406.4586.7540022
CompanyLoyalty1366.49 576.88405.7586.8840022

Amlib

top

This year’s survey included 7 responses from libraries using Amlib (full product report and narrative comments), an integrated library system also supported by OCLC.


SirsiDynix company profile

SirsiDynix

top

SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.

This year 531 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 131 libraries using Horizon and 25 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 687 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey

Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008, but have improved every year since. Looking at this trend demonstrates that while there may be negative fallout following a business event, that a company can work to improve its perceptions over time. The ownership of SirsiDynix changed again in December 2014 with its acquisition by ICV Partners. This first year since that transition saw continued movement upward in perceptions scores for Symphony, a slight dip in scores for Horizon, and a sharp rise in perceptions ratings for EOS.Web.

Symphony

top

SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.

Large academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (6.98), as did large public libraries (7.67). Symphony received second-highest scores among large public libraries for general satisfaction (7.00), overall ILS functionality (6.72), and electronic resource management (5.76).

19.8 percent of libraries (106 out of 536 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 59 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Alma (30), WorldShare Management Services (18), Koha (9), Polaris (9), FOLIO (7), Sierra (6), and Evergreen (5). 7 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.

SirsiDynix Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS5316.69 746.08486.40166.311946.78777.03217.14167.63327.16
ILSFunctionality5316.64 746.16486.35166.001946.81776.77216.81167.56327.09
PrintFunctionality5237.14 747.05487.17157.401896.95777.22217.38167.94327.88
ElectronicFunctionality5255.61 734.81484.81164.631915.84765.96216.10167.00326.63
SatisfactionCustomerSupport5187.11 736.67477.13136.691866.97777.44218.00167.88327.94
CompanyLoyalty5166.34 735.52476.23154.931886.54736.58217.71147.64327.06

Horizon

top

Libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), continue to show less interest in changing systems, apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term. Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, is the only legacy system showing decreased numbers in libraries considering migrating to a new system (see selection/deselection report). This year 42 out of 133 (31.6%) responses indicated interest in change, and dramaticly less than in 2008 when 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. Of those libraries indicating interest in mmoving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Polaris (9), Sierra (4), Alma (5), WorldShare Management Services (4), Symphony (4), Evergreen (4), Koha (2), and FOLIO (2).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1316.54 155.93116.732336.85396.8586.63276.57
ILSFunctionality1316.31 155.73116.182336.52396.5686.38277.00
PrintFunctionality1317.28 156.87118.002337.15397.4487.13277.71
ElectronicFunctionality1294.86 143.86113.732325.78394.9084.63276.43
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1297.01 157.47116.732316.74397.1087.00277.57
CompanyLoyalty1296.29 156.27115.452336.21386.3787.25177.43

EOS.Web

top

EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 33 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been fairly erratic across the annual editions of the survey. This year, results in all categories were sharply improved over those seen last year, which were down from the previous year. Omitting 2016 results, responses from 2014 through this year can be seen as generally improving.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

EOS.WeballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS247.38 40000000
ILSFunctionality257.24 40000000
PrintFunctionality257.80 40000000
ElectronicFunctionality256.28 40000000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport258.28 40000000
CompanyLoyalty247.46 30000000

The Library Corporation company profile

The Library Corporation

top

The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 115 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 11 for libraries using Carl.X.

Library.Solution

top

Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries performed best in the mid-sized public library arena, from whom it received somewhat higher ratings than those given by small public libraries. Ratings in all categories have declined for Library.Solution in the last two years. Libraries using Library.Solution give higher ratings for support (7.54) than for the other categories. 29 out of the 115 respnoses (25.2%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1156.93 97.4430746.74117.270127.420
ILSFunctionality1156.92 97.5630746.84117.090127.080
PrintFunctionality1147.18 97.7820746.95117.730127.580
ElectronicFunctionality1125.89 96.1130725.85117.000115.550
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1157.54 98.0030747.41117.550127.920
CompanyLoyalty1146.67 97.0030736.33117.450127.500

Carl.X

top

Carl.x (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 11 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X were substantially higher in 2016 commpared to those given in 2015, but declined somewhat this year. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation thier highest scores for print functionality and lowest for customer support.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Carl.XallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS116.73 00024401
ILSFunctionality116.91 00024401
PrintFunctionality117.36 00024401
ElectronicFunctionality106.30 00024301
SatisfactionCustomerSupport106.10 00014401
CompanyLoyalty106.60 00014401

Biblionix company profile

Biblionix

top

Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 131 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

Apollo

top

Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections. Apollo was the top performer among small public librariesin all categories: general satisfaction (8.81), overall functionality (8.27), print resource management (8.18), electronic resource management (8.00), customer support (8.58), and company loyalty (8.50). It led the rankings among very small public libraries for every category: general satisfaction (8.55), overall ILS functionality (8.35), print resource management (8.15), electronic resource management (7.91), customer support (8.64), and company loyalty (8.51). This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. Within the realm of small and very small public libraries, Apollo has exceptionally happy customers.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

ApolloallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1318.51 0001308.510000
ILSFunctionality1308.27 0001298.270000
PrintFunctionality1318.19 0001308.180000
ElectronicFunctionality1307.99 0001298.000000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1298.57 0001288.580000
CompanyLoyalty1308.50 0001298.500000

Book Systems company profile

Book Systems, Inc.

top

Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.

Atriuum

This year 115 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; 95 were from small public libraries, 11 from schools, and one from an academic library. The company earned its strongest ratings in customer support (8.25); Since 2007 ratings across categories have been improving steadily. This year saw a slight improvement in all categories except for company loyalty.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

AtriuumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1157.97 100957.9100118.450
ILSFunctionality1157.90 100957.8500118.270
PrintFunctionality1147.98 100947.9100118.550
ElectronicFunctionality1066.87 100886.8500106.400
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1148.25 100958.1800108.600
CompanyLoyalty1127.73 000937.6600118.180

Civica company profile

Civica

top

Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.

Spydus

top

This year 34 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and all but one from outside the United States. Of the 34 libraries responding, only 2 (5.9%)indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Among mid-sized public libraris, Spydus was given top ratings for company loyalty. This group also gave Spydus strong ratings for overall ILS satisfaction (7.27), ILS functionality (7.14), and print functionality (7.73). Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. This year saw an increasy in company loyalty, but a slight drop in other categories.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

SpydusallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS347.00 100147.36126.42110
ILSFunctionality336.70 100136.92126.58110
PrintFunctionality347.26 100147.50127.17110
ElectronicFunctionality345.85 100146.43125.17110
SatisfactionCustomerSupport346.35 100146.86125.50110
CompanyLoyalty336.91 100147.29126.50010

Koha logo

Koha

top

Support providerResponsesGeneral Satisfaction
All Installations3607.49
ByWater Solutions1737.75
Independent617.66
LibLime356.31
PTFS Europe197.32
BibLibre5--
Catalyst6--
Kobli 3--
Equinox5--
Interleaf Technology5--

Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.

As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 360 libraries using Koha responded to the survey. Libraries of all types use Koha, reflected in this year’s responses:

  • Consortium: 9
  • School: 21
  • Large Academic: 3
  • Medium Academic: 15
  • Small Academic: 84
  • Large Public: 0
  • Medium Public: 14
  • Small Public: 109

When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been generally rising since 2011. Scores saw a sharp peak in 2010, while 2008 and 2009 were much lower than previous or subsequent years.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3607.49 847.29158.1331097.68147.360217.7197.44
ILSFunctionality3587.27 846.99157.6031087.48137.000217.4397.00
PrintFunctionality3567.58 837.45158.0731087.46147.860218.0597.00
ElectronicFunctionality3426.17 826.01156.0031016.37146.000206.5095.44
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3457.52 807.28147.8631067.68147.570217.5797.78
CompanyLoyalty3396.99 796.57148.0731057.25147.570207.2596.89

ByWater Solutions company profile

ByWater Solutions

top

Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown included 89 public libraries, 38 academics, 5 consortia, and 14 schools.

ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries for overall satisfaction (7.77), ILS functionality (7.31), print functionality (7.92), electronic functionality (7.00), and ILS support (8.31. (6.46) and satisfaction with customer support (7.67). ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among mid-sized academic libraries. 94.3 percent of its clients reported that their system was implemented on schedule. When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater has seen diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a significant improvement since 2015.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Koha -- ByWater SolutionsallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1737.75 327.5640807.7987.880147.4367.50
ILSFunctionality1727.47 327.3440797.5887.380147.0766.67
PrintFunctionality1727.72 327.6340797.6688.000147.7167.17
ElectronicFunctionality1646.48 316.1640756.3286.630136.4665.33
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1717.93 317.7140797.8188.630147.7167.83
CompanyLoyalty1697.41 327.4440777.3187.000137.0067.83

Evergreen

top

Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 142 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 98 were from small public libraries, 10 from medium sized public libraries, 7 from small academics, and 3 from mid-sized academics (see charts for library type and library size). Among small public libraries, Evergreen received the higher ratings for its print functionality (7.42) than for functionality for electronic resources (6.50).

Most libraries using Evergreen rely on Equinox Software for hosting and support services, with a minority of implementations operate without commercially-povided support services.

Equinox software received the highest ratings by mid-sized public libraries in the category of print functionality (7.30).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1427.27 76.2931987.43106.8011157.40
ILSFunctionality1427.08 76.0031987.31106.7011157.13
PrintFunctionality1427.43 76.5731987.50107.3011157.67
ElectronicFunctionality1386.28 75.4331956.57105.1011156.00
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1357.61 76.8621937.84106.9011147.64
CompanyLoyalty1277.04 66.3331907.2186.8811146.43

Follett company profile

Follett School Solutions

top

Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with around 70 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a fraction of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.

Destiny

top

Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year 312 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 267 from schools and 30 from small public libraries (full product report and narrative comments). It is not surprising that school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public libraries. The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.54 and 6.83 for publics. This product was seen as weakest in functionality for electronic resources (all responses: 6.56; schools: 6.76). Destiny has seen steadily rising scores in the survey since 2010, with a spike in 2013.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

DestinyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3127.46 87.0000306.83002667.541
ILSFunctionality3107.29 76.5700306.53002657.401
PrintFunctionality3097.88 87.2500307.30002637.971
ElectronicFunctionality3036.56 86.1300305.20002576.761
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3047.64 76.8600297.10002607.731
CompanyLoyalty3017.30 85.0000306.30002557.481

Circulation Plus, Athena, Winnebago Spectrum

Follett’s legacy products continue to see use, through the numbers are diminishing. This year 1 library using Winnebago Spectrum 2 using Circulation Plus responded to the survey.


OPALS logo

OPALS

top

The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 261 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 165 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 8 from consortia, 5 from small public libraries, and 23 from small academic libraries.

OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.89), ILS functionality (8.85), print functionality (8.90), electronic resource functionality (8.90), and company loyalty (8.77). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

OPALSallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2618.85 178.761078.57001638.8988.88
ILSFunctionality2598.81 178.591068.50001628.8588.88
PrintFunctionality2608.89 178.711078.71001648.9088.88
ElectronicFunctionality2208.05 167.811067.83001488.1666.67
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2618.85 178.821078.71001648.8588.75
CompanyLoyalty2548.74 178.821078.14001608.7788.75

FOLO

FOLIO

top

FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data, and with the Open Library Environment providing community engagement and educational activities. See EBSCO Supports New Open Source Project published by American Libraries for further information on FOLIO.

Still in its development phase, the software is not yet complete and no libraries have yet implemented it in production. The results of this survey do provide some indicators for the level of interest for FOLIO. Of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new automation system, 59 mentioned FOLIO as a candidate. FOLIO was publicly announced in April of 2016. When specifically asked which open source products may be of interest, regardless of active plans to migrate, 135 mentioned FOLIO, 250 mentioned Koha, 107 mentioned Evergreen, and 4 mentioned Kuali OLE. FOLIO was mentioned 12 times in narrative comments.


Selected Statistical Tables

Emphasis on Peer Groups

top

Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

Public Libraries

top

Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 4 10 15 5 87.518 1.35
Symphony43 2 2 7 19 9 4 77.007 0.61
Horizon20 4 1 8 7 76.907 1.79
Sierra28 1 3 4 7 10 3 76.116 0.94
All Responses152 2 6 12 27 54 40 11 76.907 0.65

Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 3 14 15 2 87.317 1.35
Symphony43 2 7 6 16 10 2 76.727 0.61
Horizon20 1 4 1 10 4 76.607 1.79
Sierra28 4 5 10 3 6 66.076 0.76
All Responses152 1 1 8 20 24 51 43 4 76.707 0.65

Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 2 2 8 14 9 87.748 1.18
Horizon20 1 2 2 5 5 5 77.308 1.79
Symphony43 1 1 2 5 14 14 6 77.097 0.91
Sierra28 1 2 4 3 10 5 3 76.547 1.13
All Responses152 2 1 6 11 15 43 49 25 87.177 0.65

Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 3 2 4 7 6 10 2 86.207 1.01
Symphony42 1 2 2 4 9 7 9 7 1 55.766 0.62
Sierra28 1 1 3 6 4 3 5 5 45.325 0.76
Horizon20 2 3 1 3 6 3 2 65.156 1.34
All Responses150 5 6 11 14 22 31 28 30 3 65.776 0.49

Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony43 1 1 1 3 6 18 13 87.678 1.22
Horizon20 1 1 1 1 5 7 4 87.208 1.79
Polaris34 1 1 1 4 15 8 4 77.097 0.86
Sierra28 1 1 5 3 4 2 8 3 1 64.395 0.57
All Responses151 1 2 7 6 7 12 18 34 40 24 86.657 0.65

Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris34 1 3 1 13 8 8 77.387 1.37
Horizon19 1 1 1 4 2 6 4 86.898 2.06
Symphony42 2 1 1 1 5 2 9 9 12 96.888 0.62
Sierra27 1 1 2 3 2 7 1 3 4 3 55.305 0.96
All Responses145 4 2 4 7 3 17 13 29 32 34 96.707 0.75

Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 1 1 7 3 87.778 2.22
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 2 7 5 2 77.297 1.70
Spydus15 1 2 5 6 1 87.277 1.81
Polaris75 1 1 3 11 25 26 8 87.207 0.00
Library.Solution30 1 3 1 5 7 6 7 76.977 1.46
Horizon41 1 2 6 6 11 8 7 76.837 1.25
Symphony118 1 1 2 8 8 23 37 28 10 76.717 0.37
Sierra74 2 2 5 6 19 20 18 2 76.437 0.93
All Responses451 1 1 8 4 25 33 78 136 117 48 76.837 0.38

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 1 3 7 1 87.318 2.22
Polaris75 1 2 3 9 25 26 9 87.257 0.46
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 2 8 5 1 77.187 1.70
Spydus14 1 2 4 7 87.148 1.87
Library.Solution30 1 5 4 8 8 4 76.977 1.46
Sierra74 1 1 1 3 8 15 22 19 4 76.627 0.81
Symphony118 3 1 9 9 26 37 27 6 76.577 0.37
Horizon41 1 1 3 4 7 14 10 1 76.497 1.09
All Responses449 1 6 7 23 36 82 137 125 32 76.787 0.38

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 3 5 4 87.928 1.94
Polaris75 2 2 19 35 17 87.798 0.46
Spydus15 1 4 8 2 87.738 2.07
Horizon41 5 4 9 16 7 87.398 1.09
Sierra74 1 2 3 11 17 29 11 87.328 0.93
Library.Solution30 1 1 2 4 6 4 12 97.308 1.64
Symphony117 3 1 3 10 12 26 45 17 87.168 0.46
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 2 7 6 1 76.947 1.94
All Responses450 4 4 4 8 26 44 110 168 82 87.338 0.38

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 2 2 5 2 2 77.007 2.22
Polaris74 1 1 5 1 3 7 15 21 15 5 76.267 0.23
Library.Solution29 1 3 3 3 3 8 3 5 76.077 1.30
Symphony118 2 3 9 5 9 18 18 31 16 7 75.756 0.18
Spydus15 1 1 2 6 1 4 55.475 1.29
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 2 1 1 2 4 4 3 65.416 1.70
Sierra71 2 2 4 6 7 14 13 15 5 3 75.306 0.71
Horizon40 1 1 4 4 6 6 7 7 4 64.955 1.26
All Responses445 14 10 28 21 42 68 73 108 55 26 75.636 0.33

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 1 3 8 98.319 2.22
Library.Solution30 2 3 6 4 15 97.839 1.64
Horizon39 2 2 1 5 9 11 9 87.108 1.44
Symphony115 2 4 5 8 17 20 34 25 87.098 0.28
Evergreen -- Equinox Software17 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 66.717 2.18
Polaris71 1 2 3 4 2 10 27 13 9 76.667 0.00
Spydus15 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 66.407 1.03
Sierra73 7 7 3 7 9 10 17 9 4 75.346 0.82
All Responses441 1 8 16 18 24 25 59 100 96 94 76.767 0.43

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Spydus15 1 2 4 2 6 97.608 2.32
Evergreen -- Equinox Software16 1 1 1 3 3 7 97.068 2.25
Library.Solution30 1 1 2 4 2 3 6 11 97.008 1.46
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 96.858 1.11
Symphony112 4 1 6 7 12 13 28 23 18 76.447 0.19
Polaris73 5 1 2 8 7 10 11 13 16 96.297 0.00
Horizon41 2 3 3 2 1 9 5 7 9 66.207 1.25
Sierra72 4 2 3 7 4 11 13 9 11 8 65.576 1.06
All Responses440 24 4 17 13 28 40 61 77 78 98 96.367 0.38

Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo45 2 1 10 32 98.609 1.34
Koha -- ByWater Solutions41 1 4 8 7 21 98.029 1.25
Atriuum34 1 1 6 15 11 87.918 1.54
Evergreen -- Independent14 1 1 5 3 4 77.578 1.87
Polaris67 1 1 1 5 6 18 21 14 87.318 0.98
Evergreen -- Equinox Software30 1 1 2 2 7 12 5 87.308 1.10
AGent VERSO39 1 1 2 2 7 7 16 3 86.777 0.96
Symphony76 3 2 2 2 3 12 22 19 11 76.717 1.03
Library.Solution37 2 2 3 4 6 2 10 8 86.597 1.32
Sierra31 2 4 8 12 3 2 76.457 1.44
All Responses498 5 8 15 11 26 59 113 136 125 87.218 0.40

Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo44 2 5 16 21 98.278 1.36
Atriuum34 1 2 6 17 8 87.798 1.54
Koha -- ByWater Solutions40 1 4 10 15 10 87.728 1.26
Evergreen -- Independent14 1 1 5 3 4 77.578 1.87
Polaris65 1 1 3 2 22 21 15 77.558 0.87
Evergreen -- Equinox Software30 1 3 4 8 8 6 77.237 1.10
Symphony76 1 5 2 3 10 22 20 13 76.917 1.03
AGent VERSO39 2 1 1 2 5 10 15 3 86.877 0.96
Sierra31 1 1 3 8 12 3 3 76.617 1.44
Library.Solution37 1 2 5 3 4 5 12 5 86.577 1.32
All Responses495 1 1 11 9 16 20 60 126 149 102 87.208 0.40

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo45 1 1 2 2 12 27 98.319 1.19
Evergreen -- Independent14 3 1 6 4 87.798 1.60
Atriuum34 2 1 4 12 15 97.768 1.54
Koha -- ByWater Solutions40 1 1 3 8 11 16 97.758 1.11
Polaris67 1 1 1 2 5 12 24 21 87.638 0.98
Evergreen -- Equinox Software30 2 1 4 7 8 8 87.408 1.10
Sierra31 2 5 12 10 2 77.167 1.44
AGent VERSO36 1 1 2 2 5 8 14 3 86.837 0.67
Symphony73 2 1 3 3 5 8 15 23 13 86.827 1.05
Library.Solution37 1 1 3 2 3 4 2 13 8 86.708 1.32
All Responses491 8 2 6 6 17 21 51 86 157 137 87.348 0.41

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo45 1 1 2 3 12 26 98.279 1.34
Atriuum32 3 3 4 5 10 7 86.698 1.59
Polaris66 1 2 1 8 5 9 18 12 10 76.527 0.86
Evergreen -- Equinox Software30 2 1 6 3 10 6 2 76.477 1.10
Koha -- ByWater Solutions39 3 1 1 6 8 5 11 4 86.417 1.28
Evergreen -- Independent14 1 1 2 1 6 2 1 76.367 1.60
AGent VERSO37 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 4 14 1 86.117 0.66
Symphony76 1 1 6 3 4 11 13 19 15 3 75.936 0.80
Library.Solution36 3 1 2 4 2 2 3 2 14 3 85.727 1.33
Sierra31 1 3 2 3 4 5 5 4 2 2 54.815 1.44
All Responses489 13 9 22 22 33 52 69 90 109 70 86.257 0.32

Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo43 1 2 5 35 98.639 1.37
Atriuum34 1 5 9 19 98.269 1.54
Koha -- ByWater Solutions40 1 3 8 5 23 98.059 1.26
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 2 2 5 6 13 97.938 1.13
Evergreen -- Independent13 2 4 7 97.929 2.50
AGent VERSO39 1 1 2 3 2 7 13 10 87.188 0.96
Library.Solution37 2 1 4 2 3 5 7 13 97.008 1.32
Polaris62 2 3 2 4 10 12 15 14 86.927 1.02
Symphony72 3 1 1 3 7 5 22 15 15 76.867 1.06
Sierra30 1 3 1 1 8 5 7 2 2 55.536 1.46
All Responses481 2 6 8 10 23 37 36 88 98 173 97.288 0.41

Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo43 1 2 5 35 98.639 1.37
Atriuum34 1 5 9 19 98.269 1.54
Koha -- ByWater Solutions40 1 3 8 5 23 98.059 1.26
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 2 2 5 6 13 97.938 1.13
Evergreen -- Independent13 2 4 7 97.929 2.50
AGent VERSO39 1 1 2 3 2 7 13 10 87.188 0.96
Library.Solution37 2 1 4 2 3 5 7 13 97.008 1.32
Polaris62 2 3 2 4 10 12 15 14 86.927 1.02
Symphony72 3 1 1 3 7 5 22 15 15 76.867 1.06
Horizon11 2 3 2 3 1 55.826 1.81
Sierra30 1 3 1 1 8 5 7 2 2 55.536 1.46
All Responses481 2 6 8 10 23 37 36 88 98 173 97.288 0.41

Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo78 3 3 21 51 98.549 0.91
Atriuum56 1 2 2 1 2 3 15 30 97.939 1.07
Koha -- LibLime12 2 1 7 2 87.758 1.73
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 2 2 2 7 11 9 87.528 1.39
Evergreen -- Equinox Software22 1 2 8 7 4 77.508 1.92
AGent VERSO62 2 3 2 11 6 18 20 97.428 0.51
Symphony51 1 1 1 3 5 12 12 16 97.338 1.12
Polaris44 2 2 4 2 9 15 10 87.208 1.21
Library.Solution17 1 2 1 4 4 5 97.068 2.18
Destiny22 1 2 2 3 6 4 4 76.777 1.71
Sierra13 1 4 6 1 1 76.777 1.94
All Responses488 1 7 10 18 20 42 86 126 178 97.548 0.36

Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo78 1 2 6 29 40 98.359 0.91
Atriuum56 1 2 2 5 22 24 97.918 1.07
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 4 1 8 11 8 87.458 1.39
Polaris44 2 1 2 2 11 17 9 87.418 1.21
Library.Solution17 1 2 4 7 3 87.358 1.94
Koha -- LibLime12 1 2 2 6 1 87.258 1.73
AGent VERSO62 1 3 2 4 8 8 18 18 87.248 0.76
Evergreen -- Equinox Software22 2 3 7 8 2 87.237 1.71
Symphony51 1 1 1 1 2 2 18 14 11 77.187 1.12
Sierra13 1 1 3 5 2 1 76.697 2.22
Destiny22 3 1 4 7 5 2 76.597 1.49
All Responses487 1 1 5 16 13 22 34 99 156 140 87.458 0.36

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo78 2 1 1 1 2 4 19 48 98.159 0.91
Atriuum55 1 1 1 1 2 3 18 28 98.059 1.08
Koha -- LibLime12 2 8 2 88.008 2.02
Evergreen -- Equinox Software22 1 7 6 8 97.958 1.71
Polaris44 2 2 4 4 13 19 97.808 1.21
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 2 1 1 6 11 11 87.528 1.39
AGent VERSO60 1 3 3 6 9 21 17 87.508 0.52
Destiny22 1 1 2 8 6 4 77.327 1.71
Library.Solution17 1 2 2 2 6 4 87.298 2.18
Sierra13 1 2 5 4 1 77.157 2.22
Symphony50 1 1 1 1 2 7 12 13 12 87.088 1.13
All Responses483 7 1 3 8 14 19 34 78 142 177 97.588 0.36

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo77 3 1 1 3 7 25 37 97.918 0.57
Koha -- LibLime10 1 2 5 2 87.808 2.21
Polaris43 1 1 2 3 4 6 13 13 87.218 1.22
Atriuum51 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 10 13 17 97.188 0.98
AGent VERSO60 1 1 6 8 6 6 18 14 86.928 0.52
Evergreen -- Equinox Software21 1 1 2 5 4 4 4 66.817 1.75
Library.Solution17 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 3 86.478 1.94
Symphony49 2 2 1 8 3 8 7 7 11 96.207 1.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 3 1 2 7 2 3 7 5 55.937 0.91
Sierra12 1 3 1 3 4 85.927 2.31
Destiny22 3 2 1 4 2 4 3 3 55.236 1.49
All Responses463 19 10 7 10 28 42 38 67 121 121 86.768 0.37

Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo78 1 1 5 11 60 98.649 1.02
Atriuum56 1 1 1 2 1 16 34 98.219 1.07
AGent VERSO62 1 2 8 9 13 29 97.908 0.89
Evergreen -- Equinox Software20 1 4 9 6 87.908 2.01
Library.Solution17 2 1 1 6 7 97.768 2.18
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 1 2 5 7 2 15 97.488 0.87
Symphony50 1 1 2 4 3 6 17 16 87.428 1.13
Polaris42 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 14 12 87.178 1.23
Destiny21 2 1 4 4 3 7 97.107 1.53
Sierra12 1 1 3 2 3 2 55.926 1.15
All Responses479 4 1 4 9 14 26 30 59 111 221 97.718 0.37

Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo77 1 2 1 5 12 56 98.519 0.91
Atriuum54 4 1 2 8 11 28 97.579 1.09
Koha -- LibLime12 1 1 3 3 4 97.428 2.02
AGent VERSO56 2 4 2 7 9 13 19 97.368 0.40
Evergreen -- Equinox Software19 2 1 1 2 7 6 87.118 2.06
Symphony50 2 1 2 4 5 10 11 15 97.088 1.27
Library.Solution17 1 1 2 3 4 6 96.888 2.18
Polaris41 2 2 3 3 6 2 12 11 86.788 1.25
Sierra12 1 2 3 2 2 2 66.677 1.15
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 2 1 2 3 2 5 3 11 96.577 1.28
Destiny22 1 1 3 3 1 4 3 6 96.557 1.49
All Responses467 14 4 5 10 22 31 32 62 96 191 97.288 0.37

All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo130 1 5 6 32 86 98.519 0.79
Atriuum95 2 2 2 1 4 10 32 42 97.918 0.82
Koha -- ByWater Solutions89 3 3 7 16 27 33 97.808 0.85
Evergreen -- Independent25 1 2 1 6 6 9 97.648 1.80
Evergreen -- Equinox Software73 1 1 4 7 23 26 11 87.368 0.82
Polaris224 1 3 1 5 12 23 63 77 39 87.308 0.00
V-smart12 2 6 3 1 77.257 2.31
Libero23 1 1 4 8 5 4 77.177 1.25
AGent VERSO110 1 2 4 4 4 20 14 38 23 87.108 0.76
Spydus28 1 1 5 12 8 1 76.967 1.13
Koha -- LibLime18 1 1 4 3 7 2 86.898 1.41
Symphony297 4 1 4 5 12 18 48 92 70 43 76.877 0.23
Destiny30 2 2 3 3 8 6 6 76.837 1.46
Library.Solution85 4 2 8 6 12 13 20 20 86.817 0.87
Horizon81 1 4 13 10 24 21 8 76.807 0.89
Sierra148 2 5 8 16 38 49 25 5 76.407 0.66
Millennium14 1 4 4 4 1 55.716 1.60
All Responses1618 7 2 23 31 61 95 209 396 426 368 87.177 0.20

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo129 1 1 4 13 47 63 98.278 0.79
Atriuum95 1 3 2 4 11 40 34 87.858 0.82
Koha -- ByWater Solutions88 2 6 5 21 35 19 87.578 0.85
Evergreen -- Independent25 1 2 1 7 7 7 77.528 1.60
Polaris222 1 4 4 8 16 72 80 37 87.408 0.27
V-smart12 3 4 3 2 77.337 2.60
Libero23 1 5 6 9 2 87.227 1.46
Evergreen -- Equinox Software73 1 7 9 25 22 9 77.197 0.82
AGent VERSO110 4 4 4 7 16 19 35 21 86.998 0.57
Library.Solution85 1 2 7 10 8 18 27 12 86.877 0.87
Symphony297 1 2 9 1 14 22 46 96 72 34 76.807 0.23
Spydus27 2 8 9 8 76.787 1.15
Destiny30 1 4 1 6 7 7 4 76.537 1.28
Sierra148 1 1 2 9 18 36 42 31 8 76.527 0.58
Horizon81 1 1 7 8 14 30 19 1 76.527 0.89
Koha -- LibLime18 1 1 1 5 3 6 1 86.507 1.41
Millennium14 1 1 4 2 4 2 55.646 0.80
All Responses1612 2 3 23 34 61 101 204 420 480 284 87.117 0.20

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS Support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo128 1 1 1 1 8 18 98 98.589 0.80
Atriuum95 1 2 2 2 1 6 26 55 98.189 0.82
Libero23 1 2 1 9 10 98.098 1.88
Evergreen -- Independent24 2 1 1 8 12 98.009 1.84
Koha -- ByWater Solutions88 1 2 6 5 16 10 48 97.909 0.85
AGent VERSO110 1 1 4 5 10 18 29 42 97.638 0.86
Evergreen -- Equinox Software69 1 1 2 3 6 13 20 23 97.578 1.08
Library.Solution85 2 1 8 3 7 12 17 35 97.428 0.98
Symphony289 1 4 3 8 10 21 29 56 87 70 87.178 0.18
Destiny29 3 1 1 5 4 5 10 97.108 1.30
V-smart12 2 1 6 1 2 77.007 2.02
Horizon79 3 2 4 6 9 18 21 16 86.967 0.90
Polaris211 2 2 3 8 9 10 27 59 50 41 76.937 0.00
Koha -- LibLime17 1 2 3 3 3 5 96.827 1.21
Spydus28 1 1 1 3 10 5 5 2 66.256 0.94
Millennium14 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 65.646 1.34
Sierra145 2 8 16 8 13 22 26 30 14 6 75.236 0.58
All Responses1580 8 17 36 44 68 101 149 285 353 519 97.208 0.20

Academic Libraries

top

Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2017)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma66 2 5 6 32 20 1 77.007 0.86
Symphony16 2 1 5 3 4 1 66.317 0.50
ALEPH 50025 1 1 2 5 2 10 3 1 76.087 1.00
Sierra56 1 4 9 8 12 11 9 2 65.886 1.07
Voyager25 2 1 3 6 6 6 1 55.406 1.60
All Responses226 1 1 6 9 20 27 40 75 42 5 76.207 0.47

Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma66 2 3 15 31 14 1 76.837 0.86
Symphony16 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 66.006 0.50
Sierra55 1 8 4 9 11 15 6 1 75.736 0.94
ALEPH 50025 1 1 7 4 5 5 2 45.325 1.00
Voyager25 1 4 2 8 5 3 2 55.165 1.60
All Responses225 2 7 16 19 30 48 68 32 3 75.946 0.47

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra56 1 2 5 23 14 11 77.437 1.20
Symphony15 1 2 3 7 2 87.408 1.03
ALEPH 50024 1 2 10 8 3 77.387 1.22
Alma66 2 6 2 27 25 4 77.207 0.86
Voyager25 1 1 5 10 8 76.927 1.60
All Responses223 1 1 6 11 21 84 72 27 77.257 0.47

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma66 2 3 17 20 21 3 86.977 0.98
Sierra55 1 2 4 7 8 16 6 8 2 1 54.735 0.94
Symphony16 2 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 54.635 0.25
Voyager24 1 3 2 5 7 1 3 2 43.634 1.22
ALEPH 50025 2 1 7 5 2 4 1 3 23.403 0.20
All Responses224 8 10 23 20 25 33 31 44 26 4 75.005 0.47

Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony13 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 96.698 0.00
Alma65 2 4 3 12 9 19 12 4 76.267 0.37
ALEPH 50025 2 2 3 4 8 4 2 76.207 1.00
Voyager25 2 4 2 3 9 5 76.127 1.40
Sierra57 1 6 1 7 9 8 8 8 8 1 44.955 1.06
All Responses223 4 6 7 18 19 29 37 52 38 13 75.846 0.47

Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma65 1 1 1 1 8 5 12 20 16 87.158 0.87
ALEPH 50024 2 4 2 3 5 8 97.138 1.22
Voyager25 4 4 4 4 3 6 96.647 1.60
Symphony15 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 44.935 0.00
Sierra56 6 1 2 7 6 13 5 7 6 3 54.805 1.20
All Responses223 15 5 7 9 16 35 24 30 41 41 85.997 0.60

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma97 2 1 2 10 26 37 15 4 76.567 0.51
Symphony49 1 2 2 1 6 12 11 10 4 66.337 1.14
Sierra75 3 3 7 8 15 24 13 2 76.177 0.69
WorldShare Management Services41 1 1 2 2 4 12 11 7 1 66.106 0.78
Millennium26 1 2 1 2 4 5 7 2 2 75.736 1.18
Voyager32 1 3 3 9 3 9 4 55.666 0.88
ALEPH 50024 2 1 1 2 2 8 4 4 65.386 1.63
All Responses393 3 3 12 13 22 49 88 113 65 25 76.277 0.40

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma96 1 2 2 8 12 39 28 4 76.897 0.61
Symphony49 2 2 1 7 15 8 11 3 66.296 1.00
Sierra75 4 1 5 15 13 16 17 4 86.246 0.58
WorldShare Management Services41 1 2 2 2 4 10 10 10 66.056 0.78
Millennium26 2 3 2 4 7 4 1 3 65.626 1.18
Voyager32 2 2 5 7 5 7 2 2 55.566 0.88
ALEPH 50024 1 1 1 6 3 3 4 4 1 45.466 1.63
All Responses392 2 2 13 17 25 53 71 103 84 22 76.287 0.35

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Voyager30 1 1 5 7 12 4 87.338 1.28
Sierra75 1 2 2 2 5 19 32 12 87.328 0.81
ALEPH 50024 1 1 5 4 9 4 87.218 1.84
Symphony49 1 1 1 3 5 16 15 7 77.127 1.14
Millennium26 1 1 3 1 8 8 4 77.087 1.37
Alma97 2 1 4 6 13 37 28 6 76.897 0.61
WorldShare Management Services40 1 1 4 5 4 7 12 6 86.677 1.26
All Responses389 2 6 5 14 21 45 109 129 58 87.137 0.41

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma97 3 3 1 8 19 33 23 7 76.717 0.61
WorldShare Management Services41 1 1 1 2 2 11 9 10 4 66.497 1.25
Sierra74 2 5 3 7 10 14 10 12 11 55.055 0.58
Symphony49 1 7 5 5 1 6 11 5 7 1 64.735 0.86
Millennium26 1 2 4 2 4 5 3 2 2 1 54.385 0.98
Voyager32 7 5 4 3 3 4 4 1 1 13.914 0.18
ALEPH 50023 4 2 6 4 2 1 2 2 23.302 1.67
All Responses390 13 29 31 27 28 44 64 76 63 15 75.286 0.30

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony48 1 2 2 2 7 6 19 9 86.988 1.15
Voyager32 1 1 2 4 7 4 10 3 86.507 0.71
WorldShare Management Services41 1 1 1 1 7 7 11 6 6 76.467 0.78
Alma96 4 1 2 11 13 19 26 14 6 76.076 0.61
ALEPH 50022 1 1 3 2 3 8 4 75.917 1.49
Sierra75 2 4 2 7 8 11 19 11 9 2 65.296 0.58
Millennium26 1 3 3 3 3 4 7 2 75.046 0.59
All Responses386 6 13 9 18 29 45 71 85 72 38 76.137 0.41

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Voyager32 2 1 3 5 5 8 8 86.978 1.24
Alma97 3 1 4 7 7 12 18 22 23 96.817 0.51
ALEPH 50023 2 1 5 2 4 1 8 96.357 1.88
Symphony48 2 4 3 2 3 8 10 9 7 76.107 1.15
WorldShare Management Services41 3 2 1 2 2 6 5 9 3 8 75.786 0.62
Sierra75 2 2 6 7 11 11 11 13 10 2 75.195 0.46
Millennium26 1 2 4 3 1 4 3 3 3 2 24.775 1.18
All Responses390 11 11 20 23 26 43 50 71 65 70 76.127 0.41

Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS17 2 15 98.769 2.18
Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 2 2 11 8 9 77.568 0.71
Koha -- Independent20 1 1 1 6 5 6 77.458 2.01
AGent VERSO14 1 1 5 5 2 77.438 2.14
WorldShare Management Services59 1 2 3 14 21 12 6 76.857 1.17
Sierra75 2 4 5 5 13 27 15 4 76.457 1.04
Alma54 2 3 4 9 7 18 8 3 76.177 0.68
Symphony74 1 4 5 7 8 7 26 10 6 76.087 0.58
Horizon15 2 1 3 1 4 3 1 75.937 1.81
ALEPH 50031 1 2 3 7 7 5 6 55.816 0.54
Voyager35 1 2 5 4 2 7 9 4 1 75.496 1.35
Millennium21 1 2 2 2 2 5 3 3 1 65.336 1.53
All Responses546 2 2 18 27 35 48 78 153 111 72 76.557 0.39

Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS17 1 1 15 98.599 2.18
Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 2 5 10 8 7 77.347 0.71
AGent VERSO14 2 3 2 5 2 87.148 2.14
Koha -- Independent20 1 1 2 1 5 4 6 97.108 2.01
WorldShare Management Services59 1 1 1 5 8 19 19 5 76.957 1.17
Sierra74 1 3 4 9 12 22 16 7 76.617 0.93
Alma54 2 1 2 6 9 19 12 3 76.577 0.82
Symphony74 4 6 7 8 9 18 16 6 76.167 0.81
ALEPH 50031 3 2 5 1 6 8 4 2 75.776 0.36
Horizon15 2 1 3 4 1 3 1 65.736 1.55
Voyager34 2 1 1 7 4 5 5 7 2 45.716 1.37
Millennium21 1 1 1 2 3 5 5 2 1 65.676 1.53
All Responses542 1 5 18 23 34 47 86 137 120 71 76.567 0.34

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS17 1 1 15 98.719 2.18
Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 2 1 10 11 8 87.638 0.71
Koha -- Independent20 1 1 1 3 8 6 87.608 2.01
Sierra75 2 5 6 22 22 18 77.488 1.04
AGent VERSO14 2 4 6 2 87.438 2.14
WorldShare Management Services58 2 1 1 4 3 15 21 11 87.268 1.18
Symphony74 2 2 3 6 7 17 24 13 87.058 0.81
Millennium21 1 1 3 7 7 2 76.957 1.53
Alma54 1 3 5 7 17 14 7 76.897 0.68
ALEPH 50031 1 1 1 2 3 11 7 5 76.877 0.90
Horizon15 1 2 3 2 5 2 86.877 1.81
Voyager34 3 1 4 6 12 8 76.387 1.20
All Responses543 1 9 15 12 38 51 140 165 112 87.218 0.39

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS16 1 6 3 6 77.818 1.75
Koha -- Independent20 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 6 96.758 2.01
WorldShare Management Services57 1 1 3 6 12 17 12 5 76.657 1.19
Alma54 2 3 2 7 12 13 12 3 76.307 0.54
AGent VERSO14 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 66.297 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 8 6 4 76.167 0.72
Sierra72 2 3 4 4 5 9 17 22 5 1 75.466 0.47
Symphony73 5 3 7 10 4 13 7 15 5 4 74.815 0.35
Millennium20 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 1 3 54.105 1.57
Horizon14 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 03.864 0.80
Voyager34 5 2 6 2 6 3 4 2 3 1 23.824 0.69
ALEPH 50031 1 5 4 6 3 7 3 1 1 53.583 0.18
All Responses534 20 26 36 42 33 68 84 112 69 44 75.496 0.17

Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS17 1 16 98.829 2.18
AGent VERSO14 1 2 4 7 98.219 1.87
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 1 3 6 10 10 87.718 0.72
Koha -- Independent18 1 1 1 3 3 9 97.619 2.12
Horizon15 3 2 7 3 87.478 2.07
WorldShare Management Services59 1 1 2 4 8 15 19 9 87.027 1.17
Symphony73 2 5 5 8 6 17 17 13 76.677 0.82
ALEPH 50031 1 3 7 3 9 4 4 76.397 1.26
Alma55 1 1 1 1 2 13 15 8 10 3 66.046 0.67
Voyager34 1 2 2 7 9 7 4 2 65.976 0.86
Sierra72 1 4 6 7 8 13 16 11 6 75.936 0.82
Millennium21 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 84.675 1.53
All Responses536 4 9 12 22 24 65 69 110 117 104 86.677 0.30

Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS17 1 1 15 98.829 2.18
AGent VERSO14 1 1 2 5 5 87.578 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 1 1 5 2 3 4 16 97.449 0.00
WorldShare Management Services57 2 2 1 1 6 5 12 15 13 86.887 1.19
Koha -- Independent17 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 6 96.718 2.18
ALEPH 50030 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 3 10 96.477 1.64
Alma52 2 1 2 2 10 5 14 7 9 76.317 0.69
Horizon15 1 1 2 3 2 4 2 86.277 2.07
Voyager35 2 1 1 1 4 4 5 4 5 8 96.066 0.68
Sierra73 5 3 3 3 6 11 9 16 10 7 75.566 0.94
Symphony73 9 1 5 5 3 6 5 18 10 11 75.527 1.05
Millennium21 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 04.245 1.31
All Responses529 40 11 21 15 23 62 58 90 86 123 96.197 0.35

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS23 2 1 20 98.789 1.88
Koha -- ByWater Solutions36 2 2 11 10 11 77.678 0.67
Koha -- Independent28 1 1 3 7 6 10 97.578 1.13
AGent VERSO14 1 1 5 5 2 77.438 2.14
Library.Solution12 1 1 1 2 3 4 97.428 2.60
Virtua12 1 8 3 77.177 2.02
Alma219 4 4 8 24 39 89 43 8 76.607 0.34
WorldShare Management Services109 2 1 2 4 8 29 37 19 7 76.537 0.86
Symphony141 2 8 7 8 15 25 40 25 11 76.217 0.42
Sierra207 6 11 21 21 40 63 37 8 76.207 0.63
Horizon28 2 3 2 5 1 6 5 4 76.077 1.32
ALEPH 50082 2 2 2 3 8 15 17 19 13 1 75.736 0.55
Voyager92 1 5 9 10 17 16 24 9 1 75.526 0.83
Millennium60 3 1 5 5 5 7 13 12 5 4 65.326 1.16
All Responses1185 7 6 36 50 78 125 208 347 220 108 76.397 0.26

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS23 1 2 20 98.619 1.88
Library.Solution12 1 1 3 4 3 87.428 2.60
Koha -- ByWater Solutions36 2 5 12 8 9 77.427 0.67
Koha -- Independent28 1 1 2 4 7 5 8 97.147 1.13
AGent VERSO14 2 3 2 5 2 87.148 2.14
Virtua12 1 9 2 77.087 2.02
Alma218 3 3 6 17 37 90 54 8 76.797 0.41
WorldShare Management Services109 2 2 4 4 11 19 32 30 5 76.517 0.86
Sierra205 6 12 13 33 37 53 39 12 76.237 0.56
Symphony141 3 5 8 9 16 30 29 31 10 86.206 0.59
Horizon28 4 3 1 3 5 4 6 2 85.716 1.13
Voyager91 2 4 7 14 19 15 15 11 4 55.515 0.84
ALEPH 50082 1 1 5 4 19 8 14 17 10 3 45.486 0.55
Millennium60 1 6 6 6 8 15 10 3 5 65.406 1.16
All Responses1179 3 9 40 57 80 131 209 311 237 102 76.347 0.26

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS23 1 2 20 98.709 1.88
Library.Solution11 1 3 1 6 97.829 2.71
Virtua11 5 3 3 77.828 2.11
Koha -- Independent28 1 1 2 4 10 10 87.758 1.32
Koha -- ByWater Solutions36 2 1 1 10 11 11 87.678 0.67
AGent VERSO14 2 4 6 2 87.438 2.14
Sierra207 1 2 5 9 16 64 68 42 87.428 0.63
Horizon28 1 2 4 5 9 7 87.398 1.32
Symphony140 3 3 5 9 14 37 47 22 87.127 0.59
ALEPH 50081 1 3 3 3 10 25 24 12 77.057 0.67
Alma219 3 4 6 17 22 82 68 17 76.997 0.41
Millennium60 2 3 1 5 4 17 18 10 86.987 1.16
WorldShare Management Services107 1 2 3 5 9 10 26 34 17 86.967 0.87
Voyager89 3 3 6 16 29 28 4 76.857 0.85
All Responses1175 3 16 23 32 71 117 337 371 205 87.207 0.26

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS21 1 8 4 8 77.868 1.53
Alma219 2 3 6 5 18 48 66 58 13 76.707 0.41
WorldShare Management Services107 1 1 3 1 5 9 24 31 23 9 76.557 0.87
Koha -- Independent28 1 2 1 1 3 3 6 5 6 76.327 1.32
AGent VERSO14 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 66.297 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions35 1 1 2 1 2 2 6 8 8 4 76.237 0.68
Library.Solution12 2 1 2 4 2 1 76.177 1.73
Sierra202 5 10 11 18 24 39 33 42 18 2 75.105 0.28
Symphony140 6 12 14 16 7 23 20 24 13 5 74.775 0.25
Virtua12 1 2 1 1 4 3 64.676 1.73
Millennium59 4 5 10 5 7 13 5 3 5 2 54.104 1.17
Voyager90 6 12 13 11 16 7 11 8 4 2 43.804 0.63
Horizon27 4 4 5 3 1 2 2 1 4 1 23.593 0.58
ALEPH 50081 7 9 18 11 9 13 5 6 3 23.403 0.11
All Responses1167 43 66 92 89 89 147 179 234 162 66 75.326 0.26

All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS23 1 1 21 98.789 1.88
AGent VERSO14 1 2 4 7 98.219 1.87
Library.Solution12 1 1 5 5 88.088 2.60
Koha -- ByWater Solutions35 1 1 3 7 10 13 97.808 0.68
Koha -- Independent25 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 10 97.328 1.20
Virtua12 2 6 3 1 77.257 2.02
Horizon28 1 1 5 2 4 9 6 87.008 1.51
Symphony136 2 2 2 7 6 12 14 24 40 27 86.817 0.60
WorldShare Management Services109 3 2 3 1 11 19 29 25 16 76.727 0.86
Voyager91 2 1 4 8 13 19 20 19 5 76.206 0.73
ALEPH 50080 1 5 2 6 13 10 25 12 6 76.137 0.56
Alma218 1 5 4 7 17 38 43 54 36 13 76.116 0.41
Sierra205 3 11 7 20 25 27 40 35 28 9 65.416 0.49
Millennium60 4 4 5 5 6 7 10 12 6 1 74.825 1.16
All Responses1164 15 29 29 58 74 141 177 250 230 161 76.337 0.26

All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS23 1 2 20 98.839 1.88
Koha -- ByWater Solutions36 1 1 5 2 3 5 19 97.589 0.00
AGent VERSO14 1 1 2 5 5 87.578 2.14
Library.Solution12 1 3 2 1 5 97.178 2.60
Koha -- Independent24 1 1 1 2 2 4 3 10 97.088 1.22
Alma216 3 5 4 4 10 25 22 45 50 48 86.807 0.34
ALEPH 50079 4 2 1 3 12 8 13 10 26 96.667 0.68
Voyager92 2 1 3 2 8 11 14 13 16 22 96.537 0.83
WorldShare Management Services107 5 2 3 3 3 14 11 23 20 23 76.487 0.87
Symphony138 14 2 10 9 8 10 15 28 22 20 75.607 0.77
Horizon28 2 3 3 4 4 2 7 3 85.576 1.51
Virtua12 1 1 2 5 2 1 65.506 1.73
Sierra205 13 6 11 18 23 35 25 36 26 12 75.205 0.56
Millennium60 7 4 6 6 4 8 7 8 5 5 54.555 0.90
All Responses1162 68 27 49 50 65 140 132 196 195 240 96.137 0.21

School Libraries

top

School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction (2017)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS163 1 1 2 7 152 98.899 0.70
Symphony16 2 1 3 5 5 87.638 2.25
Destiny266 2 1 1 2 5 8 29 55 90 73 87.548 0.49
Koha -- ByWater Solutions14 1 1 2 7 3 87.438 2.14
Library.Solution12 1 1 3 2 5 97.428 2.60
All Responses522 4 2 4 4 8 14 36 75 123 252 97.898 0.35

School Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: School) (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS162 2 5 8 147 98.859 0.63
Symphony16 1 3 2 6 4 87.568 2.25
Destiny265 2 1 2 1 9 9 34 47 101 59 87.408 0.49
Library.Solution12 1 2 2 5 2 87.088 2.60
Koha -- ByWater Solutions14 1 1 2 1 8 1 87.078 2.14
All Responses519 4 2 5 3 10 14 48 68 138 227 97.798 0.35

School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS164 2 3 4 155 98.909 0.70
Destiny263 2 6 2 15 42 87 109 97.978 0.55
Symphony16 1 3 8 4 87.948 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions14 1 1 1 6 5 87.718 2.41
Library.Solution12 1 3 3 5 97.588 2.60
All Responses519 4 2 2 1 7 4 22 59 125 293 98.179 0.40

School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS164 2 3 4 155 98.909 0.70
Destiny263 2 6 2 15 42 87 109 97.978 0.55
Symphony16 1 3 8 4 87.948 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions14 1 1 1 6 5 87.718 2.41
Library.Solution12 1 3 3 5 97.588 2.60
All Responses519 4 2 2 1 7 4 22 59 125 293 98.179 0.40

School Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS160 2 1 3 20 134 98.779 0.71
Symphony14 1 1 1 2 3 6 97.648 2.41
Library.Solution12 1 1 2 2 6 97.509 2.60
Destiny255 5 1 2 4 11 15 12 41 64 100 97.488 0.56
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 2 1 4 6 97.008 2.22
All Responses502 12 4 4 5 16 21 20 51 101 268 97.759 0.40


An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


ILS Turnover Reports

Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2017 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2017 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2017 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


Details about The Survey

top

The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

  • How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
  • How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
  • How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
  • Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
  • How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
  • How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

view automation survey

Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from libraries.org.

A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB and PUBLIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in libraries.org, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

Statistics

top

To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

  • Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
  • A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
  • The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
  • The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
  • The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
  • The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

  • Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
  • Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.

[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


Caveat

As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.