This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2017 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.
There were 1050 narrative comments given regarding 83 different products:
We transitioned to Access-It recently, and the transition was good, but we cannot get support to get our Webapp working, so we cannot provide a catalogue to students. Weeks have passed without any kind of catalogue - a webapp that isn't appropriate, doesn't work in chrome, has cut off access to our databases etc. They were keen when the initial payment to buy the system was made, but have faded to nothing since. Very worrying and frustrating. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
The ILS interface is older and being phased out by the company. I am hoping for improved tools for gathering statistics and producing reports. I have also found that the structure and effectiveness of our consortium affects our satisfaction as much as the tool or the actual customer service of the company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We really do not like Primo. I don't know anyone who does. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We've been looking at companies that offer cognitive search, but it seems most are focused on the whole company as a customer. Is this a topic of interest in the library community - I have not been keeping up well with current trends. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sierra implementation was delayed one for all public higher ed institutions in FL (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
Debido a la falta de divisas, un presupuesto absolutamente deficitario y la obligación legal perentoria de migrar a un sistema de gestión de biblioteca basado en software libre, pero sin acceso a recursos presupuestarios para costear la migración, activamos la cláusula de licencia perpetua de Aleph en febrero 2016. Esto significa que ya no tenemos acceso a soporte por parte del proveedor. Se inició el proceso de migración a Koha en noviembre 2015, esperamos culminarlo en el 2018. La migración se está haciendo (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Imlementaremos Alma en 2018 (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We were forced to change our customer support provider, which resulted in some problems. Hope it will be better (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Support issues connected with PRIMO upgrade took lot of time during 2017. ILS support was however running smoothly except for the Connection between catalogue records ALEPH/Primo (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We will be changing the discovery service to Primo when we go to ALMA (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our consortium was actively looking for a second generation ILS, but has put that project on hold for the time being. Our current system is adequate for print materials. We are considering switching our discovery layer to EDS and will make that decision by the end of this year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Kundenservice /-support wird von uns nicht in Anspruch genommen, und kann deshalb nicht bewertet werden. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Migration to Sierra Encore was delayed by a year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We will be migrating to Alma. Done deal, contract signed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)
The customer support from our consortium office is good. The consortium had an RFP, and selected Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Exactly for what are you using our responses? Are you sharing the collected data with those who participated in your surveys? (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] Consortium has not completed the migration to Alma. My answers are for Aleph, since the [...] hasn't even begun testing Alma yet. I didn't answer the questions about dealing with customer support because [...] deals with Ex Libris on our behalf. I'll send you the size of our collection later. (Library type: Law; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We tried to get some recommendation from Ex LIbris on how to set up Aleph to conform with the EU GDPR directive. They did not consider this to be something worth looking into - they said Aleph is ok in this regard and that was that. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have revoked our contract with Landskerfi, the Aleph vendor in Iceland, effective March 2018. Icelandic libraries are currently choosing a new library system, but the Iceland Transport Authority (that took over the Icelandic Maritime Authority in 2013) has no plans to participate in a new nationwide system. We have a small print library with very limited needs. The costs involved with taking part in a nationwide system far outweigh the benefits of taking part. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)
Our implementation of Sierra is a consortial endeavor. The original go-live data was July 2017, but it and has be delayed by a year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
When our current ILS was chosen, it seemed like it would be a good fit for our consortium. That was 14 years ago and it's time to move on. We'll be initiating an RFP process in the near future. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] migrating to Alma with an anticipated go live date of Summer 2019 - migration activities are currently under way. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
[...] is part of the [...] which is part of [...] , the institution works with whatever products come recommended. We are also a very small institution compared to the needs of the other institution within [...] . (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
electronic holdings = 388,892 print holdings = 306,947 (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently in the midst of migration to Alma, with an anticipated go-live in June 2018. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Most libraries in Iceland use [...] the Aleph database and the [...] they manages contracts and performance on behalf of us. The discovery interface checks are not relevant. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I believe that Aleph is one of the best, if not the best ILS on the market. I really like the functionalities and its complexities as you can get what you want from it most times. Its Support staff is good especially the more senior ones who are more familiar with the product. Support is most active when Aleph is down and can be depended on to help you to get it up in the shortest possible time. I enjoy working with the team. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Aleph is a product that is more appropriate for other library contexts. It no longer works well for ours. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
[...] (Library type: National; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Alexandria has amazing customer support, and there is always a real person ready to answer the phone and work through any issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Great customer support, fairly easy to use system, reports are a little difficult to use sometimes (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Annual cost is high. We cannot afford to purchase any extras. Customer service is good. Some difficulties in the interface with our local technology/broadband/server. Customer service is not always able to diagnose or solve issues we have, but not for lack of trying. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are a very new site. There is the usual disruption with such a massive change, and there are issues with how many features work in the new system. We are still highly satisfied with the move. The rapid pace of development is a very new experience for us and we are trying to figure out the best ways to keep up with that. It does alleviate concerns we have about features that we thought would work better than they do. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We implemented Alma and Primo in January of 2016. We moved to new Alma and Primo interfaces in Fall of 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our main vendor has really stepped up its game in regards to listening to customers at the design-process level. That's greatly improving the design of their products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Currently most university libraries (13+3+2 out of 21) in our province are looking for a shared LSP as a consortium. We may join them if Alma and Primo are chosen by the consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
It's a hard system to administer for a small library (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our migration from Voyager to Alma was assisted by a knowledgeable and accessible team from Ex Libris. We had previously had a negative experience in adding the Primo discovery system to Voyager ( about a year before migrating to Alma). Ex Libris updated its training materials and personnel before the migration to Alma, and had obviously taken to heart some of the criticism and suggestions we and others made during our move to Primo. The migration was accomplished in a very tight timeline, causing stress for our implementation team, but excellent help was there whenever we needed it. Note: I want to explain an inconsistency on our answer to a survey question: we list the # of items in our collection as 329,081 this year. Last year it was approx. 33,000, which represented the print collection only. Our print collection this year numbers about 55,000 items, but e-resources have been added to the total count this year because of the ease of pulling that particular statistic from Alma. I hope this change in midstream won't negatively impact the survey results. However, it is more representative of the actual resources we provide. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As we're new to Alma, we still haven't implemented all it's capabilities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ExLibris' digital management workflows in Alma are rapidly maturating and I think it would be interesting to include a questions about user satisfaction with how the organisation's ILS manages digital resources, as well as electronic and print. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
21,786 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We just migrate to Alma this last year and are still adjusting to it and the support provided. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Alma seems designed for large, multi-library systems. It does not work well for our small, one library institution. The new User Interface is a significant improvement, but does not address complicated and confusing workflows with excessive mouse clicks and scans. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Training was pushed out as online videos which was not well received by staff. Videos included blurry images and we could not see details of Alma screens. There was outdated content and videos were more general overviews. A major difficulty was modifying workflows from III Millennium to Alma. Ex Libris staff were not perceived as being helpful in this regard. Workflow workshops held in Illinois was not accessible to all staff that needed it since we must remain open and serving students. The one on-site workshop came too late after go live. Electronic activations completed by Ex Libris resulted in eresources not being discovered in Primo for various reasons, which is currently perceived as the biggest problem which continues 5 months after go live. Support for eresource discovery is weak. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We love Alma's agile development cycle, analytics, and APIs. Ex Libris still needs to acknowledge that not all libraries at an institution operate the same way; there are still too many institution-level settings that should be library-level. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Primo is problematic. Community Zone for electronic resources often does not include resources for EBSCO products or resources from competing ProQuest vendors, or only includes the most popular ones. Requests for improvements are slow. Have retained EBSCO Discovery Service because Primo is inadequate at this time. Sales Force responses to problems are sometimes general in nature and do not fully address the problem. . We had expected better from Ex Libris Alma/Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris staff continue to provide a high level of R&D development and Support processes continue to improve (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
The migration to Alma will not be complete until summer 2018 so I cannot give any opinion on it at this time. However, having suffered with Aleph for the last 3 years, anything is better than that! (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)
We implemented Alma and Primo this summer. Their training was very disappointing, and their documentation is poorly-organized, unclear, incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate. In addition, things that should be simple (e.g. adding an option for users to report a problem with an item) require custom programming by the library. Now that we are live, the quality of support is quite poor. Relatively straightforward issues can take > a month to resolve. Some support staff seem to have trouble understanding the issues we report, requiring multiple back-and-forth communication to convey even a simple problem. The products are powerful and offer extensive capabilities--if implemented well and operated by well-trained staff. Unfortunately, we have struggled due to poor training, documentation, and support. Overall, our staff are frustrated and unhappy with our new systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
ExL support is cumbersome and slow. The product still has unrealized potential and is making progress. We have great hopes for PrimoVE. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Specific functions/processes from previous ILS (Voyager) are still desired but not available - and are on the enhancement list (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
ExLibris is an easy to work with vendor. Frequent communication and request for customer input and ideas for improvement. Deliver a reliable product on time. They maintain open communication with customers. Excellent, excellent, excellent. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library staff is small, and we have suffered as a result of a shortage in the breadth and depth of our library systems knowledge during the past year. It has been difficult for us to bridge the gap between what we are a lacking as an individual library, and the technical support levels offered by our library consortium and ILS vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
ExLibris is responsive to its user community, providing a developer's portal, enabling educational institutions, who have the resources, to develop, implement and share with the larger community. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
"Approximate number of items in the library's collection" I have answered just for physical stock. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We migrated to Alma this year. It was a successful migration, though time-consuming. There's some staff dissatisfaction in the aftermath of the migration particularly in the areas of "steppy" processes that seem oriented toward more complex environments than our single-library case. Many functions that were reasonably straightforward in our previous ILS and article knowledgebase systems now require complex interactions between XML files, normalization and indication rules, Oracle BI queries, and external Excel matchups. The system is highly customizable, except when it's not (scheduled job timing, for example). Staff are generally able to do what they need to do, however. Migration from EDS to Primo has been okay, but we have been dissatisfied with indexing delays and some limitations of search and there have been significant user complaints. We were accustomed to much faster turnaround from changes made in EDS administration, and found that the lag of a day between selection in Alma and display in Primo was bothersome. Inexplicably longer delays happen when Primo needs to establish linkage between full-text in our collections and metadata from publishers. This makes testing e-resource access problems a serious exercise in patience. The Alma/Primo VE environment being rolled out at other institutions will fix the 1-day delay issue, but not the Primo Central indexing delay. We hope that Ex Libris will tackle this soon. Ex Libris is moving Alma forward at a quick pace and new functionality continues to be introduced every month. We have also been pleased with the support provided by Ex Libris before and after our migration. The user interface improvements in Alma this year have been very helpful. We're less pleased with the new UI of Primo -- it is much slower than the old UI, and many interface customizations require complicated angular/javascript changes rather than CSS fixes. We're hoping that performance speeds up significantly in the coming months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Customer service/support has declined over the last few months. The system is still weighted towards print circulation of stock. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our ILS is a consortial shared system. That has both advantages and disadvantages. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We only implemented Alma and Primo in May 2017 and until we have had one full year of operation it is difficult to provide a fully informed answer to some of these questions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very impressed with Ex Libris' commitment to its product development, their clearly defined product roadmaps, delivery of planned functionality and enhancements. We are pleased to be part of a strong and supportive user community - both nationally and internationally. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall, very satisfied with Alma as a Library Services Platform. However, not very happy with annual increases in the region of 4.5% to 5% in a really tough economic environment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
In mid 2017 we went live with ALMA. We still have quite a few problems resulting from our configuration set up. This is mostly due to the fact that information supplied by the vendor to prepare for configuration was not clear or understandable. This has impacted on circulation set up mostly but we are getting there and when it works its great! We have yet to fully set up management of our electronic resources within ALMA so cannot comment on the efficacy of this part of ALMA. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
In the past year our library migrated from Ex Libris Voyager to Ex Libris Alma plus Primo. Our institution had little say in the decision, it was a migration by our the whole consortium. Though we purchase the system together, each institution has its own Alma environment, nothing is shared there. Ex Libris has been marching through the academic library market with migrations to Alma until it almost feels like the default option. However, their development focuses on the biggest customers in large research institutions. Alma is not the best solution for small libraries. Many of the features become cumbersome when applied to an institution with a single library with few staff. Built-in options for displaying tasks that have been "assigned" to you are a hindrance when you are the only person working on that function. Likewise, Alma requires excessive scan-in operations assuming circ and tech services departments that are not in the same building. A lot of functionality is devoted to requests, such as requests for getting an item from one library location or branch to another--when you have only one branch and all locations are in the same building this is not helpful. Other features are things we just can't afford to purchase along with Alma, such as the Digital content management aspect or the Leganto add-on. However, options for these products still exist in course reserve menus and other areas, which further complicated the set-up and use of the product. Print journal operations are a sad afterthought. They are difficult to use and set-up. Reports of expected issues Sorting of issues described by months defaults to alphabetical. Some complex patterns that could be described with MFHD 852 subfields do not work, so they recommend not using predictive check-in for those titles. Alma seems to be much more focused on processes for large journal packages, but as a small library with small budget, we don't have many of those so that is less of a benefit for us. Although the system is several years old now, it still feels new and undeveloped. The Boolean expression NOT is unavailable in advanced search. Questions on user listserv usually have more me-too responses than answers. Authority control does not offer much granularity in functionality or working with results, such as only viewing results in a particular MARC field or from a particular MARC vocabulary. (The items in the review file include 752 field items, but it is impossible to either exclude this field from review or to search for all items that use this field and dismiss them all at once.) Because everything can be customized, nothing is really usable out of the box. The flexibility of allowing everything to be customized also creates a complex customization environment. The solutions to problems and customization seem to require a high degree of familiarity with coding. For instance, "letters," aka emails to users, can be modified by changing stock text in one set of menus plus using xml / xst coding to modify the display of that text. When staff is smaller, having skill and time to use it is more rare. We are thrilled to have a nicer catalog interface with the adoption of Primo, but it also has the drawback of excessive complexity and lack of some features that were available in our more traditional opac. Many useful fields are not included by default (521-movie ratings, 586-awards) in the display of records, we had to request those to be added. Subject authority information is not available as a searchable index, alternate terms can be added to records as extra search words, but that's not the default. Alma works to check materials out and in. Primo works as a basic catalog/discovery layer. However, in so many ways it is over-designed for our institution, and we do not have the personnel, time, or need to take full advantage of it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
After pulling together the strategic, personnel and financial resources to move from Millennium to Alma, we are now five months into post-implementation. Our early impressions of life with Ex Libris have been positive. Support tickets are addressed proactively, the new features added every month are worthwhile, and the APIs have excellent documentation and come at no additional cost, a huge improvement over Innovative. However, we also experienced personnel turnover due to leaves and retirements, at the same time as the migration was obliging us to take on new roles. It will be a while before we can fairly evaluate the effectiveness of our new system and workflows. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We've been with the new system for about a 1.5 years now. It is a complex system but seems to overall work well. Our two main frustrations have been with training (it seems that this could somehow be improved, but given the complexity of the system maybe not) and the monthly release schedule. This along with major UI changes (both on public & staff sides) cause a lot of stress, especially for institutions who are trying to get started with the new system and may be dealing with new concepts & workflows (integrated acquisitions, ERM, migration cleanup, etc.) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are in a consortium and don't have much contact with the vendor of our ILS. We feel confident saying that the documentation and training available from the vendor are weak. The user interface is not user friendly nor well designed. We also have only been with our new system for a short period of time and are still forming our impressions of it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
More on-site one-on-one or small group training by function during implementation and immediately after Go-Live would strengthen successful implementation and reduce staff stress. Many online training or instruction web sites are out-of-date. Support is sometimes cryptic or insufficient. Ability to handle and sort CODOC call numbers is insufficient so far in Alma in our library and others using CODOC that we contacted. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[..] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)
currently under teething period . so, it is unfair to comment on the effectiveness & efficiency of using the new system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have Summon not Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As electronic information provision becomes increasingly disparate our online discovery tools have failed to deliver a usable service. Customers are continually complaining that it is increasingly difficult to access library information and resources. Usability testing has found significant design and accessibility flaws in our providers offering. We should not have to teach our customers how to use our interfaces. They want seamless intuitive access to library content, which none of the providers currently offer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
My personal perception is that Alma seems to be one of the only viable options out there. Although WMS seems like an ok option as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I think ExL has struggled a bit due to the ProQuest buyout, and we've yet to realize the gains of any merged product lines. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
It is unlikely that we will migrate to FOLIO -- or any other ILS -- within the next three to five years. Nevertheless, the open source concept is appealing and I don't rule out future consideration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We just switched to Alma/Primo in July/August 2017. We are still learning the new systems and working on a few post-migration issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have been in production with Alma and Primo for only three months. Our answers reflect our initial impressions only (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We can't answered to your survey at the moment. We are working very hard for the configuration, implementation, training on Alma and I can't even answer on how happy we are with the support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large)
EBSCO's unwillingness to have its databases indexed in the PrimoCentral Index remains a problem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are pleased with Alma, but we do not feel that Primo has the same high level of UX that Ebsco Discovery Service does. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
La migración al sistema Alma fue un proyecto desafiante: estábamos acostumbrados a migrar el Aleph sucesivamente desde la versión 14.1 hasta la 21, con una metodología conocida, y esta vez nos encontramos con que la tabla Gantt de migración del proveedor era standard, inflexible, inamovible y orientada al Go-Live (es decir, las funcionalidades críticas): que obliga a completar los documentos de configuración antes de la capacitación y de la certificación, que no permite iterar en aspectos claves (por ej.: migración intermedia de datos), que no es exhaustiva (por ej.: no incluye migración de autoridades locales). Adicionalmente hay restricción en la carga de la información histórica, el proveedor no entrega un mapping de datos desde Aleph y otros sistemas hacia Alma, tampoco el modelo de datos de Alma, lo cual dificulta el reconstruir los informes que producíamos en base al Aleph. Las integraciones necesarias para conectar Alma con los sistemas institucionales fueron más complejas que lo considerado inicialmente; las integraciones vía APIs son un recurso escaso, pues las APIs tienen restricción de uso por día. El producto presentó debilidades-inestabilidad en el manejo de contraseñas de usuarios y en el funcionamiento del Editor de Metadatos (el cual es lento y su nivel de usabilidad es bajo); hubo un impacto negativo en algunos procesos, producido por la diferencia de las zonas horarias de los clientes y de los datacenter; para nosotros es un producto estándar que no consideró la zona horaria de nuestro país. También tuvimos una tardía disponibilidad tanto de Primo con nuestros datos de Alma como de los ambientes de prueba Premium. Pensamos que si el producto se vende en regiones donde no se habla inglés, los idiomas de esas regiones debieran ser idiomas oficiales del software y por lo tanto el material de instrucción y la documentación en línea deben estar en el idioma del cliente. El material de instrucción y la documentación en línea debe tener mayor completitud o profundidad en los contenido, considerando la autonomía del aprendizaje. Respecto al soporte, el CRM trata de manera impersonal y no siempre atiende o entiende las urgencias, no tiene promesa de tiempo de respuesta, la relación directa entre personas del cliente y del proveedor era más rápida. El personal del soporte local no tenía las competencias necesarias para apoyar una institución de alta complejidad como la nuestra; fuimos aprendiendo con ellos (por ej.: hubo desconocimiento del proveedor en relación al trabajo con autoridades locales), el Director del proyecto designado por el proveedor, presentó debilidades en el conocimiento del producto y no tenía capacidad de decisión. La demanda por soporte especializado no termina con el Go-live, pero los recursos disponibles del proveedor ya no son los mismos del proyecto de migración. Por otra parte y tras 10 meses de operación apreciamos que el disponer de Alma nos permitió concentrar la gestión del sistema en Administradores certificados, sentir que estamos frente a un sistema más completo y moderno, que pudimos disminuir la cantidad de sistemas en operación y que ya no tenemos que realizar engorrosas migraciones. Independiente de lo anterior, seguimos con atención algunas iniciativas tales como FOLIO u otras que puedan aparecer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma continues to be a strong ARL and academic market performer. I believe that both Ex Libris managers and staff are genuinely interested in the success of its customers. However, it’s disappointing that the investments by institutions in licensing Alma hasn’t translated to a better product. While Ex Libris leaves reported, workflow-damaging defects in Alma in place for years, it has introduced new products to the market like Leganto and an emerging research data product. ERM support needs to improve. Link resolver support definitely needs to improve and I’ve heard both former 360 Link and SFX customers complain about the Alma Link Resolver. Support is overwhelmed with the new products and changes to existing products – in some cases, support staff don’t understand the problems reported to them. Building out Alma Analytics for customers (specifically, introducing as many new fields as is possible based upon common community requests) would have been a better long-term investment for the company than introducing new products. I would not be surprised for some early Alma adopters to strongly consider the FOLIO option or alternative management services in the next few years. Ex Libris should be commended for improving its Alma UI in particular and also the Primo UI. Accessibility is challenging for all vendors – for the Primo new user interface, Ex Libris has made some steps forward, but there are still significant accessibility problems with the new Primo interface. Primo APIs only return JSON and not XML, a major limiter for development. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Overall, training can be improved Documentation could be improved and more complete and easy to search Click-intensive, yes Interface is not intuitive from user perspective Eliminates need to load and update local-based clients Streamlines processing for users to request items for pickup. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
There is a certain "approach" to deal with Ex Libris in order to resolve issues or trial/implement new features. Understanding how they support and prioritise cases, makes the process less frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
In its current state at our institution, ALMA is usable but does not reflect all the time savings and efficiencies that were promised during the migration process. Ex Libris' mechanisms for feedback and correction of bugs is helpful, but often resolution is slow. The wait is sometimes 3-6 months to correct an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We love Ex Libris, Alma and Primo. We're extremely happy to be their customer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our choice in vendors is driven by the fact that we are a member of [...] . As a [...] institution, we are expected to participate with the consortium's decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Unnecessary clicks, interface is awkward, difficult to manage commonly executed work-flows, company lingo used by customer service obscure at best. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are an Alma/Primo shop. It is acknowledged that this product suite takes a fair amount of institutional “maintenance” to support configurations and developments. While we do less on the backend (hosted server), there is a lot work needed on the front end. This complexity makes maintaining the products difficult. We are also tracking other products and Open Source options for the day that one of them more closely matches our specific needs as a research supporting institution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library will go live with ALMA/Primo this week. We had indicated last year that we were not satisfied with Millennium, and were planning to migrate. We are still making the transition, however our cutover is tomorrow, and our implementation will end in early February. I will refrain from answering questions on our new product until next year, when we have some experience with the product. I can say at this point that the implementation schedule has hewed very closely to what was written in the contract (a very pleasant experience!). I can also say that the discovery interface, Primo, is not separate from the ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
We have been happy with the customer support provided through Ex Libris. The biggest challenge with Alma is keeping up with the monthly updates. We are a small staff and our systems must work. There is no in-house (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are still in the implementation stage for Alma and Primo. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small)
While Alma offers many functionalities, Ex-Libris does not offer enough support to analyze the library workflows and fully take advantage of these functionalities to implement effective workflows. The training modalities (video tutorial + multiple choices), including to obtain the certification, presents functional components in isolation of the others. As a consequence, it is difficult to fully understand how each component interacts with others, and to configure the library workflows. In general we are pleased with the recent upgrade to the new user interface which improve the librarian experience. It definitely became easier to navigate the system and personalize it. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We just migrated to Alma from WMS on January 2, 2018. So, we don't have a ton of experience yet with the system. Implementation was a bit rocky because we and UNC Charlotte are the first 2 WMS libraries to move from WMS to Alma. So far, it is working as expected, but we have a lot more configuration and refinement to do. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Good documentation and searchable in Google. Customers own email list good and great support from Alma community. Regular software updates. Annual voting for enhancements. Customer Service slow and not always satisfactory resolution of calls. Seems to be very concentrated on US libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
This is our first year live with Alma/Primo so some questions are kind of hard to answer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
A bit too much economy/capitalistic focus, that we dont need here in [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Test functionality before releasing it = Less haste more speed. More transparency regarding knowledgebase structure, workflows and content. More collaborative arrangements for the creation & maintenance of metadata required between the big players i.e. EBSCO, ProQuest & OCLC. One good quality knowledgebase would be better. We should be judging library systems on their ability to make resources discoverable NOT how much e Content they provide. The Cataloguing module for the product is clunky and it takes too long to carry out relatively basic processes BUT the ability to create sets of records and bulk edit is fantastic. In relation to the support, after going live the support dropped considerably. The supplier has a system, which complies with the service level agreement, but it does not necessary solves the calls. More reliable community zone please. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We require a better performance with mobile devices. It should include an APP that simplify transactions to our users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Considering moving the discovery face from local to cloud. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The number sited is for physical items. We are also managing 758,250 electronic portfolios via Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have recently implemented ALMA and are very satisfied with it and also with the support and guidance received from ExLibris during the implementation phase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
ALMA is intended to be flexible and thus configured in many ways to meet different customer needs . Therefore documentation never actually matches your own circumstances and helpdesk responses are often generic and leave us more confused. It often takes asking the same question 3-4 times to get a response that actually is useful. The system itself has some clunky aspects, but after 11/2 years its beginning to make some kind of sense... Front desk staff like it a lot. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Ex Libris continue to be the leading commercial ILS provider and are way ahead of Innovative who have provided very poor customer service regarding the Vital/Fedora repository product since taking it over from VTLS. We have implemented the improved Primo interface since the previous survey. Folio is still a work in progress which we are watching from afar. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
While ILS's tend to be generic in nature it is good for us to move into the managed services arena, i.e. cloud services. Management of digital content is not yet as good as it should be. Integration with other same vendor systems not as good as expected. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Now using EBSCO EDS since July 2017, ceased to use Summon (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] is currently involved in a transformation programme to devolve libraries to town/parish councils/community groups. This means that we need an LMS which can be used by volunteers with restricted access. We believe that Capita's new web interface Soprano can achieve this but are struggling to obtain the support needed to enable us to implement this. We are due to retender in the next 18 months and will require this functionality from whichever provider is successful. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Support remains variable. There is an impression that support staff numbers have reduced and there appears to be a higher staff turn over rate. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
n/a (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Biblionix continues to provide the highest level of customer service which is why I didn't say that service improved - I don't see how it could. They are very proactive in meeting our needs such as adding the pop up "Don't forget to offer voter registration form" when we are giving out new library cards. I gave a slightly lower score on the working with electronic resources because the current platform cannot work with Novelist in a way that would really meet our customer's needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Library staff find Apollo to be a complete dream to work with in comparison to Verso. Overdue reports are quickly and easily accessible without needing to click on multiple menus and set parameters, The patron catalog is colorful and straightforward to use. We've received a great deal of positive feedback from our community since migrating to Biblionix. The data migration went as scheduled with just a few minor little blips that happened, but it was nothing earth shattering. Customer service has been amazing what very few times I've had to reach out for support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We recently migrated from Atriuum to Apollo and couldn't be happier. Apollo meets more of our needs, and we've been able to streamline so many processes on the staff side more so than we could with our previous ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Apollo Biblionix has the BEST customer service I've ever encountered! You talk to a HUMAN and I feel like they know me personally, they are patient and very helpful! They are also always technologically one step ahead and always ready to implement new things libraries want. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We continue to be very pleased with the Apollo product and the support provided by Biblionix. The company continually updates the product with new features that I may not have asked for but like very much! I believe Biblionix must have an excellent quality control process because the updates are always installed with zero impact or down time. My only small ding is that they have not been able to provide the seamless integration with our electronic media provider - Overdrive - that we had when we first implemented Apollo. I suspect this is due more to an Overdrive issue than a Biblionix one - but I still wish I could click on an electronic item in my Apollo catalog and be taken directly to that item in Overdrive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Biblionix Apollo continues to deliver exceptional service and very good value for money. Best. ILS. Ever. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The team at Biblionix provides exceptional support. They are time sensitive in responding to inquiries, have extensive manual content, and take their customers input for features or problems into consideration. They continually roll out new tweaks to help us and our patrons! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Apollo by Biblionix is the BEST! The customer service alone is fantastic, but the product itself is also great and is constantly being improved! They are wonderful to work with! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are totally satisfied with Biblionix. The customer service is exemplary. The company adds new features regularly. Customers are encouraged to ask for new features. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library has been using Apollo for over four years and I'm still convinced it's the best ILS on the market for small to mid sized public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We were excited to start with our new ILS and we had some issues at launch but the customer service team was very helpful. That has not been the case as the year progressed. We struggle to get responses from the vendor and, although we were promised this system is built for the library's needs, we usually receive pushback when we ask for changes or updates that would help us do our jobs better. I'm disappointed in the decline in service since we signed with this ILS. We have a 3 year contract with them and I'm not sure if we will re-sign when the three years are up. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Used open source in the past...a disaster for a small library. Linux run, server based. Too small for tech support on staff. Local tech companies had no Linux knowledge. DISASTER. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Biblionix has been a great company to work with. They have been responsive to our needs and we find that updates requested by other Biblionix libraries are useful to us as well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love Apollo! So many great features built in, there is nothing else out there with these features at this price point. And they are working on improvements all the time, never letting it get stale or outdated. It would be incredibly hard to lure us away with any other product or vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love the responsiveness and attention to our requests that we get from Apollo. We have used one of their features (VersaCard) to turn our local libraries into a consortium where we each maintain our own system but patrons can use any library, shared cards and catalogs. For small libraries, this is a feature that's not normally available to us and is great for our patrons. My staff and patrons love this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very satisfied with the Apollo system from Biblionix. It meets and exceeds the needs of small to mid sized libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Biblionix (Apollo) came to our rescue in a time of need. Athena had crashed with no recovery available and Apollo got us up and running quickly - the customer support is tremendous. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
-- (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
Re: Customer Service: Got neither better or worse; it has been consistently excellent Re: Considering an open source ILS: we are completely neutral. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We converted to Apollo almost 5 years ago and we have been incredibly happy with the ILS system. They are constantly working to make the program better for both the patrons and the librarians. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I can't imagine a better system for a small public library. (Library type: Other; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Not currently looking to migrate (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This product is extremely easy to use. It allows us to have 60 volunteers who are able to maneuver easily. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am very satisfied with Apollo. They are constantly updating and improving the services. They also take suggestions from us for improvement ideas. We have a say in what we want our ILS to provide. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We love the personal service available from Apollo. When we call, we're often able to speak directly to the main programmer, and he follows up to make sure that everything is running in tip-top shape! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
VERY GOOD COMPANIES, ALWAY WILLING TO HELP WITH PROBLEMS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Atiuum is growing and has some areas that could be improved--but that would be true of any system. It is easy to use and easy to teach to new staff. I like that they keep improving on it. Integration with OverDrive was a great step forward. Also, working with the State Library on additions and deletions of MARC records was a huge time saver for us! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are moving to digital resources. When we get closer to achieving that goal, we will probably make changes in the ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am unsure of the Print Resources question since I don't know what you are referring to. We do not put electronic resources into Book Systems since we only use Overdrive through the Consortium for those resources. Customer Service is not better or worse but the same as they have always provided great customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Atriuum has been responsive to requests for software changes, although I find that I am requesting often. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Book Systems has been a great company to work with. There are a few little things I'd like to see implemented (or I just don't know how to access!). In the last year, they have increased training opportunities which have been very helpful and I look forward to more webinars and opportunities to learn how to make the best use of the system. It is a system I would consider for my personal libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This includes our digital collection of 62,778 items. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
First I don't know what Discovery Interface or Open source means. So I couldn't really give a right answer there. The language on Atriuum is not what public libraries use. I have told them for years now of problems and they don't fix them. Just not satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Atriuum has made wonderful improvements over the past 5 years. They are great to take our suggestions and make those changes happen. They now have retired librarians working with implementation and training. Their new App is stellar and is a joy to use even out of town. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We do not implement the ILS program for print or electronic resources. Book system works very well for our environment. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are really only considering Koha/Bywater because we are very casually considering joining a neighboring consortium that uses it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
If there is an issue, I call, they take care of immediately! I have recommended Attriuum to several people. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
What a great return on our investment with Atriuum from Book Systems ! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It would be nice if our ILS had more workshops to attend. Webinars just aren't the same when it comes to learning new things. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Have not had any major issues with this system. Very user friendly once you start using it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We will be migrating from Book Systems to Apollo in December, 2017. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We have seen many improvements with this system since we started in 2010 and they have all been a plus for us. The tech support has been great and if I need answers I just call them. They have been great to work with and has fit the needs of our library as well as being affordable. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We also have 123,873 electronic items. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have been on Atriuum for a year. So I still feel we are in the learning phase of the system. However we don't like the way the checkout function works. It requires and extra step every time to switch to another patron. I really like how the OPAC works and I can change it as needed. We just completed implementing their Textbook management system. It is great with Hardbound textbooks. But there is no way to really track consumable curriculum. there is a work around but it not user friendly. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Atriuum has immense levels of functionality and customizability, which is great and glorious. However, many librarians in our district do not take advantage of all that functionality, because there are so many options and they don't understand them. There is always a trade-off between power and ease of use, in any tech tool, and Atriuum is powerful. Atriuum also gets complaints from librarians because its interface isn't as pretty as, say, Destiny. They assume Destiny is the best product on the market because it looks pretty, and they don't understand Atriuum's features well enough to know the difference. Our librarians have experienced Destiny as far less stable with user information, which is rather critical; but they find the interface design so distracting that they forget how reliable the less-pretty Atriuum is, and still assume Destiny would be better. That shallow look-and-feel should be the least important part of an ILS, but librarians experience it heavily. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We used to use Destiny and honestly I hated it. It is geared towards schools was expensive for us as a small library, and my patrons couldn't access our catalog from anywhere other than in the library. To make it accessible online would have been another $400. on top of the almost 900.00 a year we were paying. I looked at EVERYTHING that was out there, I mean everything. I finally chose Atriuum by Booksys. And I LOVE it. https://www.booksys.com/library-solutions/public-libraries It is everything thing I was looking for, and more. Best of all, there is NOTHING here at the library that we have to do with a server. Atriuum houses all of that on it's server for us. No more worries about virus attacks, hardware failures etc. We have a beautiful site they host for us that patrons can access from anywhere. Also, since three other libraries and the local schools use Atriuum up here, we are able to share our collections with each other, and when a patron does a search for a book, if we don't have it, it shows if any of the other libraries do. I love the administrative reports, and the technical support is great, though I have rarely needed it. Here is a link to our site/catalog if you want to play around with it. [...] It's very customizable with templates, and even has a spot where you can share info and links to other town clubs or groups such as KofC, Rotary or whatever. You can add a google calendar, spotlight books or links to other library information. Atriuum was really great to work with while I was making a decision and even set up a "dummy" library for me to play with and see how the administrative end worked. They have a day long training session that is required if you chose to go with them, but makes it very easy your first day up and running. Normal set up is about a month, but because we were trying to get it done for the start of our new budget, we had everything ready to go and running in 2 weeks. Our cost which goes by collection size, is $950.00/year. Only $50.00 more than Destiny, with everything else a bonus. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love ATRIUUM. I would highly recommend it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Haven't really given much thought to open source ILS other than I know another library nearby that uses one. I like what I have right now. Our patrons can search our catalog, but we have not yet considered any thing further. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Atriuum does work with the staff if there is a problem that needs to be attended. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We currently use Atriuum. Sometimes when you are checking in/ out a stack of books, it doesn't process them all, even though they have all been scanned in, and will show up later as books still checked out on the patron's account. Then we have to go search the shelves for them and check them in again, or if someone else is checking that book out, it comes up as checked out to another patron. Also, trying to upload MARC records is a nightmare. It never works. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
No complaints, have very good tech support. The system has more bells and whistles that is needed (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Atriuum is a great product, for public libraries. It is not built for law libraries and never intended for law libraries. But for those on a budget, this is a great product that will suit most of your needs. The customer service is stellar. Book Systems is terrific to work with. (Library type: Law; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We've intergrated the three school libraries into our system--one search sees them all--and we're working on adding the historical society's small library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
First year as non MLS director with this ILS. They are providing 2 hours free training this month. xoxo (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
LMS is clunky and not user friendly. It is hard to use and staff give up trying to find info they need. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Very hands-on and attentive local team. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have recently changed to Aurora from Libero due to dissatisfaction with the Libero product and customer service. AIT have been very accommodating with any functionality requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
the cost of this system is fairly high (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Axiell needs a new leadarship style. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are at the tail end of our migration process from III's Millennium to TLC's Carl.X, and we are extremely happy with how things are going, both in terms of the ILS features, and in terms of project management. Our decision in May came down to Carl.X and Evergreen (via Equinox), and we felt like TLC's public catalog was more finished than Evergreen, but we are actually planning to download Evergreen after things settle out with our migration and start playing with it, with an eye toward possibly shifting toward open source in 3-5 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The first five months following go-live on Carl.X have been difficult, especially for technical services staff. There are essential functions we expected to be available at go-live that still are not 100%, e.g., EDI implementation. We would like more transparency about what TLC is working on for us and/or for other customers. Open tickets sit with stock answers "Thank you for your ticket" - we do not know if they are being worked on or if they are waiting for us to make them a priority. There is no defined way to prioritize tickets. Bugs in the code that affect all customers using the module/product (example: fill list functionality in the web client) are not scheduled to be fixed by the vendor, but wait for customer prioritization. TAKEAWAY: Our dissatisfaction mainly stems from the sluggishness which TLC devises and implements solutions to pain point issues. In the time it takes them to do this, we sometimes develop internal or third party workarounds that bypass the ILS entirely. At this point [...] has a large staff ILS/discovery support team and are building expertise daily. We are very interested in having more control and responsibility over the ILS so that we can provide speedier solutions to our internal customers. These comments and ratings were done as a collaboration among the members of the [...] Shared Systems team. We will also be filling out a survey for [...] which will focus on the Carl Connect web client. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
I had problems with my OS and I never could make it work locally again. Some of the records are available in Union Catalogs. Right now, I am cataloguing directly in the Union Catalog BiViPsi, but I can't change the records once submitted. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
No trabajamos con SIGB comerciales, usamos software libre y tenemos un área de desarrollo que realiza instalación, configuración, análisis y programación puntual de aplicaciones modestas y necesarias para adaptación a las necesidades locales. No usamos servicios de consultoría de empresas privadas. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
New product. Working very well. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We upgraded software programs 1 month ago. All went smoothly and we are still learning. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are a small NGO - not looking at any particular ILS - its more about reviewing ongoing affordability and funding priorities. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are currently transitioning from a custom ILS to Koha. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
I need more information on Free Open Source ILS products. KOHA is the only one I've found. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
All decisions regarding library technology are made at the district level and individual sites have no input. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Although we have a desire to switch to an open source vendor, we lack sustained internal IT support, and so will likely stick with Destiny. Unfortunately Destiny's discovery options do not compete that well with the open web, so convincing students to use Destiny in lieu of google requires a great deal of effort. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Destiny works well with print and integrates with OverDrive via a shared imported MARC. However OverDrive provides a more stable digital platform that is device agnostic. Since we are a California District, OverDrive Readformat is important because it allows offline access which meets the (ACLU) Williams Digital Sufficiency requirements. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The strongest issue with Follett Destiny is the reports are too simplified and manipulation of re[ports still does not produce the information desired. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Works well in general. The reports are difficult. We are on the LC call # system and this system assumes Dewey so we brought some of it on ourselves. I had hoped to seem more movement in capabilities in the ILS from year to year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Follett Destiny is the most widely used ILS for school libraries to my knowledge. I wouldn't really consider anything else. I've worked at other schools and test driven other systems so to speak, it's just not worth it. It interafaces with titlewise and other programs that we want to use. It is student, staff, and technology friendly. It integrates with our MMS system for student uploads, it has what we need. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our district converted to Follette Destiny this school year. The transition has been smooth, with minimal problems or confusion. Training provided by Follette was practical and worthy. I do wish it were easier to differentiate between print and AV materials. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Overall I like Destiny; however, I wish either I knew more/or the product would - integrate other digital resources I have purchased from other vendors and that digital books would be easier to access for students. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very pleased with Destiny and our partnership with [...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The only thing I don't like this year is that kids can't log into their account and put holds on books themselves. Can log in, but no hold option. Need to talk to tech support since the 2 emails have gotten no response. Don't have much time to talk on the phone. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This library moved to a new school building in August 2017. We are very happy with our contract with [...] and Follett Destiny. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been pleased with the reliability and user friendly aspects of Follett Destiny. Because it's mainly a school based system, we do find that not being able to configure some things to a public library's needs can be a bit frustrating. Some report functions are not specific enough for our needs, too. Tech support has always been outstanding, and even the price has remained reasonable. This year our cost went up just a bit for the first time in more than ten years. Transition to Destiny was smooth and uneventful when we did it 12 years ago -- and in the meantime, I've recommended the system to other small libraries in Alaska. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I do find Destiny easy to use. I have used other products, and they seemed a bit clunky to me. Maybe because I was so familiar with the Follett products, not sure. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
My biggest issue with Follett is that it is completely school oriented. This meets most of our needs, but there are issues I have visited with them about that don't seem to be a concern to them, but are frustrating to deal with in a public library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
As part f the wider [...] , we will be 'merging" with their system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Fairly inflexible use of data in the catalog (for reports to update or remove titles) as well as not allowing 'copies' to be created for electronic media other than their own ebooks. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The system added a T before the barcode and P before the patron barcode. Which causes issues when we interloan items out to other libraries. They told us that it wouldn't change are barcodes when in fact they did by doing this. There is no simple report to get a count of how many items per material type. Which is need information for state aid report. Do add new titles doesn't work that well and takes way too long and gives unrelated information to have to search through to find the one you are looking for. To add a hold is more difficult then it needs to be. When looking for the whole marc record you only gets parts, never understood why only parts of the marc record? In general it takes why to many clicks to get to where you want. It keeps reports that you will never need again and have to take the time to delete them. It would be great if it worked in conjunction with [...] . In general not a good program for a public/school library. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
I'm not familiar with an open source ILS....maybe it's just not something we've inquired about in the school district (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The district has contracted with Overdrive, and integrating the Overdrive titles into Destiny has been a challenge. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
My only comment is that the scanner that was purchased from the ILS vendor has several misscans a month. I sent it for repairs after purchase and they found no defect and offered no explanation. The problem persists. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Follett Destiny has discontinued support of their Destiny Quest interface in hope to move users to their Destiny Discover interface; however, Destiny Discover does not yet provide all the functionality of Destiny Quest. In addition, features that are advertised as available in Destiny Discover are not working properly. I have contacted tech support regarding this issue more than one and have told "we are working on it." In the past when I contacted tech support, my questions/problems have been resolved with the initial representative I spoke with. This past year, almost every time I have contacted tech support with questions/problems, my issue is "escalated" and, in most cases, I have to call back numerous times to get an answer. If our small public library had the resources to do so we would look a different ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Since Follett is designed for school libraries, it is lacking functionality for public library use. Biggest issue: reports as offered don't provide good info, getting useful info (titles to weed for example) requires multiple steps/reports to generate data. Small issues are things like we can't set different open hours on different days in the back office calendar. We can set a maximum fine for each item type, but not a cap for a max fine overall. Help manuals are not always clear. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are not able to implement open source without third-party assistance, so we are also looking at a service provider who could configure and maintain Koha for the library. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We recently migrated to Follett Destiny after 27 years with SirsiDynix. SirsiDynix proved over time to no longer have an interest in school libraries and their needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Reporting features in Destiny are not as robust as we would like. Additionally, global changes are difficult, although they have improved in the last few updates. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
It frustrates me that Destiny charges extra $ for enhancements such as title peek and Biblionasium (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The system could work better for our school if I had more control over it but, it is manged by our tech staff who are not very responsive to our needs and don't really understand how an ILS is used. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am very satisfied with the product. My only complaint is that the catalog search could be improved. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
There are several areas in the library/resource management portion of this software that could be improved. Reports cannot be created that are specific to call number ranges or integrate both statistics and title/copy information. Search results are not always reflective of the search chosen. Such as Title searches. Regardless of how exact a patron puts in the title, and chooses titles, the results are usually more than the title the patron was looking for. There are other instances, but those come to mind first. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
This would all be a district decision; however, my input would be to leave this system. I have to many issues and I do not trust this system is keeping information correctly. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I've only really worked with Horizon, Follett Destiny, and Follett Circulation Plus. I had no issues with Horizon and Follett Destiny, but I am more comfortable with Destiny as that is the platform I've used the most. Occasionally I wish there were more options with which to analyze my collection but I'm overall happy with it. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall I like the system and it works well for us. There are a few things that I really wish were possible that the current ILS is not capable of or does not provide, such as moving a copy record when it has been merged with an incorrect title record without losing all of the circ data (currently you have to delete the copy and move it). There are also some issues with patron records such as being able to delete a fine but not a refund without it being paid in the system which messes up financial records. I would also like time info for all patron history records, but that info is only available for check ins up until the book is checked out again. I know that seems like a small detail, but in an elementary library where they all swear they turned books in, sometimes it helps to see time stamps for check ins vs check outs etc.... since most will check out the same time a book is returned. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This is my first year as librarian. I am not really qualififed to answer any of these questions because I don't have a clue as to what you are referring. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I think our usage has started to go up because of the new Destiny Collections. It's been very helpful to have a more visual way to present our holdings. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I think the Welcome Page where I list my support resources could be much more visually stimulating with more options as to how to organize my links and groups. As much graphic design options that are out there, I really do believe this feature of the site is well below even an average rating. Students and teachers alike are less likely to use this part of my program due to lack of visual appeal. Also, the site is not very user friendly as a whole, even when clicking on the help link some of the directions available are for features that I do not have. After three years of working with this system, there is still a lot of gray areas that are not very clear on their functionality and usefulness in regards to my needs as a small library. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The opportunity to change some options is limited. For example, sounds and reports. Students that in self-contained homeroom has no option to indicate a "base" homeroom without them being put into that "base" HR daily. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I wish that the report creation tools was more customizable and user friendly. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am not at the administration level for the district and can not answer some of the questions. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I do not care for open source products and I have no intention of ever using them, unless they improve their search engines and create a better user-friendly interface. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The 400,00 reflects the District total spread among 30 individual schools. Currently Follett is pushing their Destiny Discover with Collections. There is a Google extension that allows Google to search Destiny. We are a Google school district and have implemented the Google-Destiny single sign on. I mention these things because these upgrades are not always useful or they have problems that need to be ironed out. Whenever we do a major upgrade, I feel like a guinea pig. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Consortium management leads to frustrations, slow-downs and delays. Technical support is okay BUT seems slow to adopt new features. Search function, e.g., is clumsy and slow. Managment at the building/district level is not always responsive, either. Destiny Follett is a great product hampered in its delivery, management, and responsiveness. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
I have no idea what most of these questions mean. I am not in charge of purchasing large scale operations for this library. Everything was in place when I took this job. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
It is not as user friendly as purported. There are too many clicks to complete a task, especially in Reports. I use less % of this system than I did with our previous software. If given the opportunity to change back, I would. During a change in administration, changes to the services for librarians and their libraries were not given consideration to the actual day-to-day work that we do and how we do it. Though that is not your fault, it does make it difficult to provide the level of services to our patrons without our (meaning librarians) being involved in the process of selecting a new automation software. I personally have referred to Follett's customer service for all of my questions whereas in the past with your competitor, I could contact local assistance and have someone come out to provide it as I needed. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
I would like to have a report that could show the following Copy ID Title Last check out date Number of check outs in a specified time frame This was available in a previous system I used and was very helpful with weeding and collection management. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
My last library in a different district had migrated from Alexandria to Follett. The one feature that I really miss was the ability to generate a weeding list. In Alexandria I could enter a number of factors: dewey range, publication date range, number of circulations, date of last circulation, and use those criteria to generate a list to consider for weeding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The search feature is horrible! I can search for a title and dozens of results come up. The title that I am looking for is buried half way down page two and other records that are just close to the title appear first. This is extremely frustrating. When we have brought this up with our sales rep or customer service, they tell us they are trying to be more user friendly, like Google. I don't want you to be Google. I want you to function as a database. Help the patrons with spelling. We have found that patrons have to be exact with their spelling. This is not useful for anyone. There has to be an easy spellcheck option to help students with searches like fairytale and fairy tale. The incorrect spellings yield zero results and this is frustrating. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are experiencing some issues with interface between the ILS and OverDrive which provides us ebooks and audiobooks. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Very sastified with Follett Destiny. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have always had a problem getting support for integrating my Axis 360 products into my online catalog (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Follett Destiny was the premier product when we invested in it initially. I don't think that has changed. I was VERY dissatisfied with the sales department, their follow through, their continuity of representation, and their commitment to getting their ILS into my district's libraries. I felt that due to our relatively small size, we weren't important to Follett. Once we had a contract, Follett did a good job of getting us up and running and training us. Over the years that we have had Destiny, I feel customer service and support have declined. I was also frustrated by the constant changes to the eReader app while my school was implementing iPads. Requiring changes and updates on students iPads made eBook use more difficult to encourage and not worth the effort to the teachers. I am finding more errors when I am adding books to the collection and when using Titlewise. For example, when adding a book, sometimes it can't find a record when searching by title, but it is there when I search by author. This indicates bad coding or bad a MARC record to me. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
school library is determined mostly by district policy makers (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
There are some clunky parts to the Destiny Discover system that get frustrating sometimes. I can't always get to Destiny Classic in order to check out or catalog books. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have been very satisfied with our ILS system. We currently use KRESA for our server with a local computer group in our county for our tech support. Everything is going well! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Feedback to specific operational needs is lacking from this vendor. I believe because the vendor is so large, they try to homogenize the operating system across multiple school districts as well as public libraries; therefore, they are not well-equipped to handle personalization of needs and services. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The school district makes all decisions about the library computer. My only issue is with the internet connection, not the library computer or Destiny. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I work with what system is provided by [...]. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Textbook manager does not meet our needs. We would like to set a due date by title and not have to manually select a due date with each textbook checked out. Not all textbooks are checked out for the entire school year. We have textbooks due at the end of 1st semester in January, and also class novels checked out for 6-8 weeks. These need to have a specific due date assigned. (we have never been successful in checking these short term books out and select a different due date). (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
It seems like Follett is trying to improve Destiny, but some basic functionality remains lacking such as student photos or nicknames on scan sheets. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I would love a better way for ebooks to be integrated. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Follett has always been very good. I would like some improvements to the new Discover screens to help the students along. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been very pleased with the system and the customer service. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I love using Destiny but every year, the price increases to the point that last year, I seriously thought about switching to something else. With the decrease in school budgets, paying a subscription service that increases 5% every year is not very feasible. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The ILS that we currently have was designed for a school, but we are a community library. I'm not sure the decision-making that went into this purchase, as it was several years before I came to the library. The visuals in the system are juvenile and would be great in a school library setting, but that is not us. We recently had a lot of trouble in upgrading our consortium's account with OverDrive because the [...] ILS platform wasn't supported and we had to create a new Library Card Manager system in order for all of the consortium's libraries to be able to upgrade to OverDrive's new platform. I'm interested in moving to a more adult-friendly library program. (Library type: National; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
In regard to support issues: Schools open help desk tickets which my unit handles. We call Follett when additional support needed. Textbook and Resource modules add items that are circulated via Destiny. Total is over 16 million. The number of items fluctuates based on weeding, loss, damage, etc. Destiny's Power search does allow for a federated search of free and paid database links. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
My responses are less than favorable for the first few questions because of the difficulty with password management for young students and overworked teachers. Better password and username mangement, recovery etc. would make our library system much better. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Have 3 grades of textbooks (Math, Science, Social Studies, and Language Art classroom novels, too). (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I think customer support is not very helpful for outside of US. They should organize the system training as free because we prefer it even if there are more alternative systems in [...]. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have been happy with Follett Destiny, especially since they stopped doing upgrades on Saturdays. Two of the above questions did not apply to us this year, but there is no "N/A" option. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our district is in charge of programs we implement, not the individual school sites. Because of this, I'm not 100% sure of some of the software. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Follett has a good reputation, is committed to improving Destiny on a regular (twice yearly) basis, asks for feedback all the time, etc. However, there are still features in Destiny that do not make sense in 2018, such as the individual trash cans (for each fine on a patron's record, or for each copy under a particular title, for example), which makes Destiny less user-friendly than the rest of it does. Check boxes would improve both the navigation and the time spent on a task, on the library staff's part. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
If the reports applications were easier to create I would be 100% satisfied with this product but honestly, the old Winnebago system we had made reports much more useful. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We don't include any electronic resources in our Destiny catalog as we only have one resource. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I just started working in the library. I have a lot to learn. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
being able to make reports even more specific (having more options that I can click on or not as needed, plus being able to name reports as I make them) as well as having options when printing spine labels (ie: putting barcode numbers on spine labels) (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
This is my 1st year as a Media Specialist. I find the the Destiny (Follet) system easy to use. However, I don't believe Media Specialist decide the automation system or discovery interface used; I believe you should contact the Palm Beach County School District and/or Library Media Services. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
We would find it helpful to have a better way of accessing/running reports for books that are not circulating and should be weeded (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The 5 ratings are 'neither yes nor no' type ratings. We've noticed a lessening of human contact with the vendor, but attribute that to the economic issues we all face. Since we've had the product for some time and have had access to vendor staff previously, the reduction in their staff doesn't impact our use or ability to use the system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Follett...like Winnebago years before them...has been fantastic from the start. Great product...great customer service. Their automation system does what we need it to do. A bolder approach in dealing with the cataloging and access to digital media would be worthy of exploring...but it's not (at least for now) a primary concern for us. Bottom line...two thumbs way up. Kudos and thanks.... (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The only issue I am having with Follett Destiny is not being able to search with two reading program criteria (i.e. Accelerated Reader & Lexile). Otherwise, I am very pleased with Destiny and the Destiny Discover Google extension. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I would like more help with inventory using the original (Panther) remote scanner. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
One thing we would like to see are more options on making our own reports. Destiny has less report options and less options to create our own reports than Circulation Plus did. We are often trying to find out specific information and are not able to run a report to do so, that we could in Circulation Plus. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
They have kept their prices down for a very long time. They do provide a service worth paying for, it just isn't pacing itself with growing needs. The fact that they don't try to raise their prices every year is telling. Customer service is beginning to fall (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I manage the ILS for all our 35 member libraries who come to me for all their support needs. While the customer service people at Follett are very helpful whenever I get stuck with something, the tech development people have been telling us for years that they will improve the ILL functions (which are completely terrible) but have not made any progress at all. There are a number of other glitches they have not fixed (like due dates not be consistent between the patron interface and the admin side) and yet they keep adding random "improvements" that are of little use to us at all (like allowing 5 email addresses for patrons instead of only 3). It's been a frustrating partnership. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Still in the implementation phase. not yet fully utilizing system. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
EOS.Web is designed for small/special libraries and as such has fewer features than some of the older ILS's used in large institutions. It is perfect for a special library like ours, and the product support is second-to-none, with a real understanding of our library and how our catalogue is delivered and used. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium)
EOS is good at what it does, but it does not do everything we need. we are not yet at the point of discussing a new system (I have only been here for 4 months) but I anticipate that discussion will begin in the next 6 months. We badly need a discovery layer. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ILS (EOS.web): A bit clunky, but our library system is strange: Government agency (which means FedRAMP) with 240 library locations, of which this is one. This library alone has twelve physical locations (between 1/2 and 252 road miles from the main branch) plus four special collections. The vendor worked very hard to help us make this work. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
You could consider including a "not applicable" in future surveys to not skew data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I have been disappointed that there are still bugs/quirks affecting basic functions that need to be addressed in monthly updates. The OPAC's site map is rudimentary. I had major problems with the platform supporting the OPAC's discovery interface. Coding that I had entered became corrupted with an update, and the company was unable to restore it to the way it was. The library has moved content to the LibGuides software, and the OPAC is no longer the go-to spot for staff. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I've worked with several ILS's and all have threir strngths and weknesses. EOS is as good as any and offers great support. This past year we went through the latest in-person training and learned a lot! (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Very very happy with EOS. Has saved our library a considerable amount of time and money over our previous vendor, Innovative. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
would like to see better report functionality. (Library type: Military; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
ILS offerings are in transition. EOS/SirsiDynix is making good progress in adapting functionality availability in their large systems offerings to the EOS.Web platform. There is a lot more work to do as discovery layers, management functions for archives and special collections, and other functionality need to be standard offerings. The design of the patron interface is template based and reasonable to implement but it looks old in design. Small libraries don't have the money or expertise to interlock the ILS interface with website platforms based on Drupal etc. so effort is needed in that regard. Libraries with large collections but small staff and budgets need reliable and affordable systems in order to manage all library services under their responsibilities. The EOS/SirsiDynix company has been very open to suggestions and been responsive in exploring adjustments to their products and services. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Major drawback of current system is poor reporting capability. We wanted to do a collection analysis project and found it difficult to get reports that highlighted the relevant information (time since last checkout, Number of checkouts in N years.) We also want to export item records to other system at our company and the output capability of the system is terrible. But it works great for plain vanilla circulation, cataloging, bla bla last century library operation. I see a distinct lack of innovation in the library automation world. I don't know what our next step is, but same old thing won't cut it. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
This ILS is being provided through our state library and all my support comes from them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Regarding the 4th question, we don't use our ILS to manage our electronic resources, but since we subscribe to so few databases, we don't need to have our ILS manage them. I did not try to answer the question about customer support since we are still in our first year on Evergreen. I don't have a previous year of support for comparison. Additionally, since we are now members of a consortium, we get our support from the consortium, and only indirectly from Equinox. Problems we report that the consortium help desk can't answer are passed on to Equinox. So there are two levels of support here, and it's difficult to parse it out in the survey questions. We are mostly happy with the support we get from the consortium; not so sure about the more knotty problems that get passed on to Equinox. I also can't really answer the question about whether we would consider working with the company again. We are now part of a consortium, and as of now that appears to be a permanent situation. Any decisions on vendor are up to the consortium, not up to us. Obviously we would consider implementing an open source ILS since we currently have one. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Most of the "5" answers regarding satisfaction with the "company" really should be "N/A" but that wasn't an option. We no longer have a support contract at all. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Currently have Open Source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sitka Evergreen has a number of annoying issues. Support is good online and on the phone. Print manual is not user friendly. The reporting features are very cumbersome and I find that I don't take advantage of the feature as I should. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We experience a significant amount of down time and Equinox can't seem to improve the problem. The[...] is looking at getting a new support vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The reviews are a bit lower than last year due to a Holds issue that we are currently experiencing with Evergreen now that we have opened our catalogue to our consortium. All other functionality of Evergreen are otherwise working well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The product is hosted by the vendor. There seems to be a fair amount of downtime, and a general slowdown every afternoon. There seems to be a lack of responsiveness to this ongoing issue. They fix the immediate problem but not the underlying causes. We are a growing consortium and the catalog is a mess because the algorithms used to merge new libraries don't work well. Attempts to clean up the mess have not been particularly successful. Overall management of the consortium by State Library has not been stellar, which has not helped the situation. It is sometimes difficult to tell if the problem is the vendor or State Library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are a member of a growing consortium. There are likely to be significant changes in the structure in the next few years. Currently we enjoy the ability to share collections across the state. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Sitka-Evergreen has some issues, but for the price, it really can't be beat. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Reporting function is extremely frustrating. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The worst part is the inability to pull items up through the search function causing staff to try multiple ways until item can be located. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
As a member of a public library system, this library doesn't have direct control of purchase of an ILS. As a member, this library's opinions and comments are solicted and welcomed by the public library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have access to many resources but have to pay for one of them if we want to use it. There are times, when trying to find a MARC record, these resources don't have it. I feel for the price of these services and how they go up every year, all resources should be accessible to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We love the ILS, but the initial training we received before migrating focused on applications that weren't relevant to our day to day usage. We hope future trainings, especially as Evergreen/SPARK moves to a web client in 2018, are more geared towards the applications we need to know how to complete. Other than that, we're very happy with the ILS. The union catalog has been running smoothly and lets us provide so many more materials to our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of [...] which uses Evergreen. We are satisfied with Evergreen but we are changing vendors from Equinox to Mobius. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The survey needed a N/A on several questions. For example: we don't use our ILS for print solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
This library never interfaces with the company that provides this ILS at all. All concerns are put to our library system, who handles that end. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been running Evergreen since its inception in September 2006. We are self-administered and our member libraries appear to be satisfied with our team's performance and with the functionality of the ILS. We are looking for ways to expand Evergreen's support of e-resource vendors so patrons have an easier time finding e-resources within Evergreen's on-board OPAC. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Company for maintenance doesn't necessarily apply to open source systems like Evergreen. We are providing most of our own support in-house and with assistance from [...]. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are extremely satisfied with our decision to migrate to Evergreen (2011 to present). The software is very versatile and our occasional support from Equinox has been outstanding. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
You need a NA option! Or a better way for consortium using open source software to answer. For example: Customer support could be answered for our Internet access for one company, for software developer for our programing issues as a different company (or "person" in our case), and a different system administrator. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are no longer contracting with an outside vendor and have not done so since August of 2015. We support Evergreen entirely in-house. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We originally implemented Evergreen in house with out a vendor. We currently use an independent contractor for system upgrades and support as we need it. Also, we have approximately 55,000 print items in our collection an approximately 500,000 ebooks added to our library collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Item count is a title count of all types, including physical and electronic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (our consortium) has made some useful updates this year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We get good customer service from the organization that hosts our catalog. We do not deal with the company who developed the catalog. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have been using Evergreen for about a year and a half. While some aspects aren't as desirable as other systems we've used, we are largely pleased with Evergreen, the responsiveness of the Mobius help staff, and how receptive to our needs and wants in the ILS they have been. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We like our ILS overall. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently talking to most vendors with discovery layers and reviewing our options. We are very keen to move to a new ILS/Discovery model during 2018, as our current model is extremely limited in its functionality. We see no long term future for our current ILS. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Because we are able to adapt our customer experience quickly on the open source VuFind product, we are quite pleased with SirsiDynix Horizon--though we would prefer the Blue Cloud products were more fully developed by now. We are likely to sign a 5-year deal with SD, but we are tempted by the Spark product due to low costs, we are concerned with the inflexibility of such a large consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It would be ideal if our ILS included a method to manage patron suggestions for purchase. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
RFP evaluation to be completed later this year. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The company is taking a long time (years) to release the new cloud based modules, and the couple that have been released are not functional enough to use in production. However, it is beneficial that the company has not forced us to change systems and is trying to cater for all customers regardless of Symphony vs. Horizon so we can migrate at our own pace. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Early days for us re Open Source but we are watching Folio with interest (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
No money to do anything about a lack of discovery service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
SirsiDynix has lost credibility through the promotion of BLUECloud -- a product that seems to still lack key functionality. In comparison, ExLibris is promoting a tried and tested product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
This survey response addresses only the ILS used for the State Library collections, not the union catalog we manage for the state. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
New mobile functionality with the ILS is allowing us to extend the life of the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our ILS Maintenance Contract expires in 2018 so we are taking the opportunity to see what other systems are available. Our library has taken a 30% budget cut so we need functionality and a product that is economical. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Horizon does have some limitations - for example, web services not really equipped to meet our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have have subscribed to Worldcat Discovery because it is required to continue to include our records in Worldcat and for ILL. Due to increasing costs, we may not continue to subscribe in 2018. Not all of our electronic resources have bib records in our catalog. As a law library with a patron subscription to Westlaw and Lexis, these vendors are very unlikely to ever allow patron search via a Discovery system. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The ILS, Horizon, is stable and functional but old. The back end has always been confusing and and often overly complicated. Making changes to itypes and the display is harder than it needs to be. But generally it does its job. However, in order to get new features, we have to buy add ons, many of which are increasingly difficult to get to work with Horizon. Even though SirsiDynix says they fully support Horizon (along with Symphony) it has become clear that they really don't. It feels like there are fewer support staff at SirsiDynix who can help with Horizon when we need it. But the biggest issues have been getting new features to work with Horizon: 1. E-commerce - we had to work with SirsiDynix plus two other vendors to get this to work. It literally took a year and was a nightmare of vendors refusing to talk to each other, phone meetings where one person didn't bother to show up, etc. 2. API to include Overdrive ebooks on our public catalogue. Again, we had to work with SirsiDynix and other vendors, and again, they did not communicate well with each other. I believe this took about 6 months to set up 3. NCIP - this took a full year for SirsiDynix to set up plus much of our Techs's time. They got it working a few weeks before a scheduled Horizon upgrade - which then broke it again. It was then down for another 2 months. Why does SirsiDynix sell a product that they are unable to implement and support? 4. We purchased Blue Cloud Analytics. The delivered product was clearly designed to work with Symphony (not Horizon) and about 75-80% of the reports were broken in one way or another. Again, it is taking significant staff time to find the errors, and get SirsiDynix staff to recognize and explain them. It has been several months now and we are still working to make this a usable product for our staff. On all occasions, SirsiDynix staff have been pleasant to deal with and they mean well, but it's become very obvious that they are unable to properly support the products they are selling. Significant amounts of our staff time have been needed to get these up and running and it feels like this has been downloaded from the vendor to the library. As well, they have been promising new products for years then they release them half completed. For example, Blue Cloud Cataloguing does not include support for viewing multiple records from your own catalogue, does not include support for Authorities and one cannot print labels yet. Therefore, for us, it is unusable. It's frustrating for staff to get excited about something new only to realize that it doesn't work yet. It would be better not to release it at all, rather than something that is only half finished and doesn't work. Similarly, Blue Cloud Analytics was delivered without Acquisitions data and yet was advertised as a replacement for Web Reporter. Needless to say, it is not. We were hoping to stay with Horizon until a really good LSP comes along. Based on our experiences over the last couple of years, I'm not sure if we'll be able to do that any longer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Item count is for physical materials as of the end of FY17. In addition, [...] has 104,354 eBooks/eAudio as of the end of FY17. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The difficulty in answering some of these questions is that SirsiDynix doesn't seem to offer a complete ILS anymore. Lately it seems they've lost focus. The core ILS is aging and newer features/modules are coming with price tags. We're getting less for our money with each passing year. They also seem to be losing sight of the importance of offering a comprehensive ILS. The number of new add-ons and outsourced add-ons (that mean extra dollars), are becoming too numerous to keep track of. SirsiDynix needs to develop innovation from within and focus on maintaining a state-of-the-art ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The public search interface is difficult to use. It needs to be more intuitive. Sirsi-Dynix Horizon seems dated in its display. The Blue Cloud has not become an option--too many problems. Horizon was supposed to be the latest greatest product when purchased. Once the company merged Horizon became a dead-end product. It is not always updated or fixed as quickly as we would like. Tweaks to MARC years ago were never implemented. If the vendor is working towards implementation of RDA, shouldn't we hear something? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Our ILS vendor (SirsiDynix) is working hard towards their BLUEcloud solutions. Rightly or wrongly it sometimes feels that this work is more important than improvements / trouble shooting on issues related to the Horizon PC client. While I can understand the desire to move away from the desktop client model, until the BlueCloud modules are fully established, we will be unlikely to move on to it, because of the risk of attempting to move staff onto unfinished product. When we move and retrain, I don't want them switching back and forth. That would be my biggest concern, is that we feel like the desktop client is taking a backseat, and it is actually the product we use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The SD customer support used to be fantastic but with it not having NZ staff anymore it is often a struggle to get help (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The SirsiDynix Horizon platform has remained static with no true improvements for the end user/administrator. Unless you are planning to spend money with the vendor (SirsiDynix) they are extremely slow to assist. SirsiDynix has benefited from a strong history in the library market, and to their advantage, are able to maintain customers because of the current market structure. We feel there is a lack of strategic thinking...products that are being 'sold' to us as the latest and greatest are suddenly no longer being developed. We feel restricted by the lack of changes we can apply to our Kids HIP catalogues, and are disappointed that the vendor has not kept areas of their delivered product (Kids HIP) up to date with equitable and culturally appropriate search categories and graphics (Explore the Library). As a school board with a variety of hardware currently in use, we are limited by the system requirements and restrictions of the vendor. Although we are not customers of Insignia, we were very highly impressed with a webinar that they provided for us. They seem to be extremely responsive to the school library market. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
For our instances within DOD network we are finding none of the vendors meet the IT requirements imposed on us by the DOD hierarchy. Almost all the extra APIs used will not work on our systems. The vendors for Discovery layers from Serial Solutions currently works with limitations but the overall DOD is looking at EDS as a replacement and as of now the limitations especially in displaying of results hasn't been tested on DOD network. Open source options are not allowed on DOD networks without a CON. (Library type: Military; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
SirsiDynix has been very supportive of our organization and how we are adapting to the changing times and needs of our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Just migrated from locally hosted Horizon to SaaS in November 2017. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
While we would be interested in adding Bibliocommons as a discovery layer, we've determined that it is just too expensive for our limited budget. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Horizon is a very good, stable, and reliable system. However our organisational structure has changed, and we no longer have a DBA to maintain our Sybase server, to maintain Horizon, or to develop HIP. In addition, the Library's focus has changed from managing a print collection to managing a mostly digital collection. These digital objects are currently stored in siloed databases that are not integrated with Horizon. We need a new, integrated system that can handle our growing digital collections and we need SaaS support to maintain, backup, and update the system. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
n/a (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Horizon is aging; BLUEcloud development is slow and the product isn't attractive; SD Horizon support is great; but being hosted by the SD SaaS team has been really problematic. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Although Horizon does not manage our electronic resources, our Enterprise online catalog and eResource Central provide that functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Consistent inability to deliver new features/services on time, downtime and inconsistent support requiring request for service credits, SaaS platform is that in name only, lagging years behind industry standards. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
As with all ILS vendors, we sometimes wish that they would spend more time enhancing functionality of core products rather than develop new products that are not useful to our business. For instance, communicating with our customers via notifications and other channels is crucial to our business. There have been no useful enhancements to that functional area. However, we are generally well satisfied with Horizon and with SirsiDynix. We welcome the expanse of features and functionality they offer with their cloud service (BLUEcloud) and that strategic direction is beneficial to us. We envision the Horizon database operating as the core of the system, with enhanced and new functionality residing in cloud servers. That seems a sensible way to enhance the ILS without requiring a costly migration to a new database. Additional services can be offered by 3rd party vendors, integrating with the Horizon database at the core. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
My personal interactions with the vendor have been excellent. They are quick to respond and eager to help. In speaking with other co-workers, they have not received the same service. Sales could be more responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)
Sirsi and Horizon have done a decent job, but they are not doing a good one supporting the products and solving problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
SirsiDynix has improved as a company over the last few years - their plan to move both ILS systems to the BC platform makes sense and is flexible since it supports local/cloud storage and can be implemented incrementally. We would like to see the BC Suite development happen at a faster pace. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix has been an excellent partner with our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Some universities and schools in [...] , our institution included, will merge within 3 to 5 years, with maybe an impact on information system technologies (ILS, Discovery Tool...) (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
My impressions of SirsiDynix as an ILS vendor were improved this year because we were able to implement Enterprise, the more full featured and modern OPAC. The company also made a web based circulation product available. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I just started in this position 4 months ago. I don't know the answer to a lot of these questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are not currently considering a migration, but are keeping an eye on Folio. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our system library manages our Library Database. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Vendor Customer Support is excellent as is the reliability of the remote hosted server (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Counted only physical items, not e-book items in the collection count. Our circulation of physical items continues to go down and we find it less and less justified to continue paying the amounts we are paying for an ILS and for cataloging. We are going to have to find an alternative soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Although we currently utilize a third party discovery product we are investigating options for an updated interface (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Regarding the questions where no response has bee provided, these questions are not applicable to my institution. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
-- (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha is our circulation module, and not used as a full ILS. We have contracted BibLibre and Libriotech for some development but our aim is to make all functionality developed for [...] part of the main Koha branch. We prefer talking about library systems architecture, rather than specific platforms. But we are currently very happy with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
All [...] municipal libraries have merged to one consortium [...] during 2017. Six regional libraries in [...] have created a massive consortium [...] , which is an in-house company offering support to Koha to the member libraries (total number of municipal libraries is 93). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
it a good program for managing data and resources. This program make us have convenient very much, However it quite difficult for changing something for example display , web bg , content but the team services are good for supporting us and helping us solve the problems. (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We used Equinox for one year as a support service for Koha when our library sysadmin left and we were unable to replace him. I have answered your questions about support based on Equinox. Ultimately, we dropped them and contracted the service with our former sysadmin. We were not happy with Equinox and are very happy with our former sysadmin. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
El soporte del sistema Koha lo hace un bibliotecario que es parte del equipo de la Biblioteca no una empresa externa. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Bywater Solutions has proven over and over again that they are willing to help the customer in anyway that they can. This year they wrote a report for me to calculate time students spent in our Tutoring Center - a part of the Library. They go above and beyond in service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Bywater Solutions, supporting Koha, has been extremely helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ByWater solutions is an excellent support company and a pillar of the Koha development community. No other United States Koha support provider compares to their involvement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been using the KOHA ILS for over three years and are very pleased with not only the initial system, but all the subsequent upgrades that have been done annually since. Bywater Solutions hosts our ILS, and provides support within the parameters of a state library supported consortium. While this can be cumbersome at times for support, the NH State Library technical staff are very efficient, and Bywater does solve our problems. And we have had no problems with the servers. I would highly recommend this system and Bywater Solutions to anyone. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We would consider open access and self hosting of a discovery service, but we do not have access to a server of our own, nor someone to maintain it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha seems more geared toward public libraries, less so for academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The only reason we are considering a switch to another ILS from Koha is so that we may join the statewide consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our Learning Resource Center has been transitioning to a full fledged academic library over the past year. We are a small tech academy with limited funds and a small collection. Koha has provided us with wonderful guidance and customer service. As a part-time solo librarian, I know we couldn't have picked a better ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since we have not yet migrated to Koha, I left most of this blank but will be happy to fill it out next year when I have more data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
We have open source now. Koha, supported through ByWater. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
ByWater Solutions is a great company to work with. Their staff are knowledgeable, helpful, innovative and positive. They are quick to respond to support tickets. They will create custom CSS, jQuery and SQL reports any time we ask. They provide webinars and tutorial videos for the upgrades that come out twice a year (which they take care of installing) We saved a substantial amount of the annual budget by going open source with Koha and being hosted by BWS. We were able to put our savings into more programs and resources for the public. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I don't know whether bywater's customer support has gotten better over the past year because I started in July. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We love Koha and the support we get from ByWater. ByWater is responsive to our requests and follow through on promises. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have had an ope source ILS for 5 years. We are very happy with the ability to help direct the forward motion of the Koha, ILS. Our support vendor is ByWater Solutions and they are very proactive in the Koha community. I would never want to go back to a proprietary ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
it is open source (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
In a former position, I was the person who initially chose to look at Koha for the consortial ILS. I believe in the open source principle and think we still made a good decision. That being said, NO ILS is perfect and Koha has a few areas that I would like to see improved, especially the ability to discover and link to ebook sources (including those OTHER THAN Overdrive) easily. As a cataloger at heart, I'd like to see a more robust expert cataloger interface, but the existing one is workable. Authorities needs work; pre-loading the LC authorities files (ncluding genre) would be a good step in the right direction. But, as I started, I still think Koha is a good choice for libraries and Bywater Solutions seems to do a good job (we started with LibLime in 2008, moving in 2010). If I were choosing again, Koha would still be looked at... Biblionix is one I'd look at (it was off our radar back then). (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We already use an Open Source ILS. Koha by Bywater (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
When[...] updated it was problematic for me. Another librarian connected me with ByWater. The problem was solved & solved well within 24 hours. Thank you (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We put in problem-tickets via the State Library, but Bywater Solutions has been the general educator and communicator. We're pleased with the response of both. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
After many years in a public school library with up to date library automation systems, then switching to Koha at a public library, I feel like I have gone back to the June Cleaver days. The inventory needs to be updated, there needs to be a true batch delete when weeding and such as that. They just did an update and it is better than it had been previously so I know they are trying. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The directors in our library consortium met last week and discussed Koha and working with ByWater Solutions. Our current contract ends in the Spring of 2018 and we all decided we like Koha and want to continue contracting with ByWater Solutions. ByWater Solutions staff are so easy to work with and very knowledgeable. Their system for launching tickets for help with the system works very well and we usually get a response in an hour or less. They stick with us until we find a solution to any problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The product is still under development. We are incorporating new functions with every upgrade. Still not perfect. The only comment regarding our support company is that unfortunately we live on different time zones. Practically we have no instant F2F communication. All LIS issues are usually solved overnight. Sometimes it takes time, when more emails need to be send both ways. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We love having a vendor/support company that listens to us and is responsive. We love having an open source system where tweaks can be made: we are currently working with Bywater to create a report that isn't currently available. We also love being able to interface with a database like Novelist K-8 directly in our OPAC. And, although we haven't yet been part of a software development, it's great for us to know that we can pay for things to be changed. The challenges lie in the fact that Koha is used in very few elementary school libraries. Over time our goal is to make changes to our system so that our OPAC meets our young students' needs better, and so that our patron database access points meet our needs more accurately. We also found that the interface that we were hoping for between Koha and Ebsco Discovery didn't quite work as we'd hoped: it's still a little unclear to us whether that was because our setup was inadequate or the connections are flaky. Working with Ebsco tech support is a great deal more opaque than Bywater, and that project is still on our To Do list. Overall, we are very happy with both Koha and Bywater compared to the rigidity and unresponsiveness of Follett and their insistence that they knew best what we needed. P.S. The customer support question got a 5 from me because it has stayed the same over the past year. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with our transition from OCLC WMS to Koha. We are a smaller library that didn't get the support needed from OCLC. ByWater showed us great support through our migration, and continue to impress us. Koha does require a little more knowledge for creating reports and other backend features, but on the whole is very intuitive. We hope that they are able to develop an ILL feature and that some of the small bugs get fixed, but those are minor issues. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am new to this position, so I cannot compare current experience to that of previous years. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're very pleased with Bywater and the support they provide. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The Koha community is making great strides with functionality making Koha a mature and extremely viable ILS especially when combined with a support company as customer service driven as ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The customer service is excellent! I also enjoy the reports and the clean interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Low ranking on Koha's ability to manage electronic resources is only because it cannot manage them as a stand alone. Can be enhanced with discovery products, which we do not have yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha Bywater Solutions is a great company to work with, very pleasant and responsive customer service, good product, we are so pleased with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Bywater is always helpful and patient with our small library. Amazing help for the price. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been very impressed with ByWater Solutions. I would highly recommend them to another library. Their support team is very friendly, helpful and realize the problem I am having is a real problem and are happy to help. They do not make you feel like you do not have a clue about what you are talking about. Again, I would highly recommend this ILS Product to other libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
KOHA works well for us. We were promiced spell check and search suggestions. This functionality has not materialized yet. For elementary students discovery is a huge need. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Every update results in breakdowns somewhere in the overall system, particularly in the accounting part, specifically fines. Illogical and inconsistent listing of search results Fast cataloging has too many steps. Inventory reporting program is difficult , insufficient, and does not meet the information needs of the library. Arrangement of report results is often not helpful, requiring results to be tabulated by hand rather than automatically adding them up. Similar reports give different figures for the same inquiry. Cataloging has too many boxes and superfluous requirements for most cataloging needs and slows down the process unnecessarily. Fines function: arrangement of results on page is erratic and therefore confusing when determing what is paid and what is not. Totals for different kinds of fine transactions must be run separately. Four steps to pay fines! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
the consortium and this library are satisfied with the open source ILS that we have been using since 2012. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Use Koha- Bywater (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
this survey is a bit confusing in the combination of questions. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Bywater's KOHA has improved since our school and public library consortium began using it, but it is still a primitive system, in comparison with Horizon, our previous ILS. Check in and check out speed is now average, rather than painfully slow. Searching with the staff module is still inaccurate. The OPAC is somewhat better. Creating reports requires specialized computer skills. Bywater's customer service has improved. In the beginning Bywater mistakenly cut off access to KOHA when they detected a problem, and failed to correctly identify its source. Many of our problems are referred to the community, and other libraries may contribute funds for Bywater to resolve the issue. The resolution takes a long time. The z39.50 record searching and importing is faster this year, and works well. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Koha strives hard to meet their clients needs and work on developments often. Sometimes, the developments are quite complicated and take time. Reports can be challenging for novices. But I've seen lots of improvement in the 2.5 years I've worked with them. They have been very responsive especially during emergencies over the weekend or holidays and have helped us with any catalog hiccups. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I did not answwer the question about electronic resources because as a consortia we have engaged that resource. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Overall, we're very satisfied with our work with ByWater Solutions and the KOHA ILS. It has better flexibility than our previous ILS and the pricing is substantially better. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The coming implementation of Elastic Search will make Koha's OPAC and search capability much better. That would raise most of my "8" responses to "9". (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Stats are for the entire consortium. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
WorldCat Discovery is great for exposing our e-resources to the uninitiated, but the limited customization options and consistent metadata linking issues without the ability to correct them locally have left us wanting. We may consider other Discovery layers, definitely open source, but the proprietary interests will be invited to make their case. EBSCO EDS taking the lead by working with Koha on their API is welcome news, and something we'll definitely consider. As Koha continues to integrate CORAL ERMS, (the ERMS we use), what it lacks for an academic library's e-resource needs is quickly becoming a nonissue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Decent support from ByWater - but uneven in that a wealthy library can pay for whatever enhancements they want/need while poorer libraries need to wait to see if their needs get addressed. True to some extent for other vendors but not quite to the same extreme... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We require a more specialized product that works for a special library. The current product is more for a public library, which means that we have different needs that it doesn't quite support. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our ILS, Koha, is open source, which has enabled us to make customizations that have improved the user interface and the workflow for many staff members. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ILS, Koha, is open source, which has enabled us to make customizations that have improved the user interface and the workflow for many staff members. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The capabilities of Koha are limited only by the imagination. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very satisfied with Koha and ByWater Solutions. We are able to make most of the customizations that we need. And ByWater Solutions is always very helpful and responsive in making those changes happen or in solving any problems or technical issues that we encounter. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is an open source ILS. It does have some features of a discovery interface being added in different updates. Our library is part of a consortium that uses this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We currently have Koha, which is an open source ILS. We do not have the expertise nor the time to gain the expertise to manage a cooperative open source library system. We preferred dealing with our previous vendor, who created and implemented the solutions to all our needs. But the price was what made our director chose this product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have been using koha through Bywater for less six months. Bywater staff have been engaged and responsive during the implementation, but I think the implementation has suffered from the dispersed support structure, and lack of a single contact/project manager for the implementation. I am spending a lot of time following up on issues, and there doesn't seem to be a central Bywater staff person who is responsible for the entire implementation, including UX/OPAC design and issues that came up as a result of the data migration. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Looking forward to the mentor program! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Amazing support from our vendor (Calyx), they have a real passion for Koha and are great to work with. Koha ILS more than suits our needs and has a great international community of developers and librarians who actively support the system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha just gets better and better! We are very happy with Calyx and also appreciate the fact that we are part of a community. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm unhappy with the cost of EDS, and considering alternatives. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We implemented Koha ILS with Catalyst IT this year, hence the '5' rating for improvement to customer service - there is no comparison year. Some limitations regarding serials management are the reason for a 7 rating generally: if those were resolved rating would be higher - generally speaking Koha is an excellent and highly configurable system. Electronic management is better on more recent versions - we are on v16.11 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Extremely happy with the Koha Open Source system and the additional support we are getting from Catalyst, a NZ based support company that also manages our hosting and consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Considering the fact that we use an open source, in house managed ILS since 2009, more than half of the questions above are difficult to answer because they presuppose a proprietary ILS vendor. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our ILS software is based on an open source platform (KOHA v. 3.22). For that reason we do not have an external customer support service. The ILS support is being carried out in-house from our Automation and Networking Dept staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
A lot of ILS related support comes from koha.se, The Swedish Koha User Group, a group of libraries looking into Koha as ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
This library doesn't depend on a company for the ILS. Vendor and support are internal HR. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Valoración muy positiva tras el primer año de implantación Funcionalidades, amigabilidad y adaptabilidad alta de Koha, que permite niveles de integración muy altos. Al mismo tiempo los desarrollos tanto a nivel de la comunidad Koha, como de la propia biblioteca, permiten hacer sistemas acordes a las necesidades y expectativas de los usuarios. Potencialidad para gestionar tanto pequeñas como grandes bibliotecas universitarias. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As a library with an open-source ILS already in place (since January 2016) that is self-migrated with no external data conversion, self-implemented and configured, and self-maintained, most of these questions do not apply to us. There is no "N/A" option available to select for them. As such, these questions do not have any response. (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We already have only because we have two internal IT skilled librarians who can do coding and programming required to customize the tool (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Reference (non-lending) library. All IT work carried out "in-house" on open-source products, so references to "vendors" in this survey should be taken with a grain of salt. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is still going strong in our schools. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ILS support issues are dealt with by the community user's group through an online forum. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
our installation done by my self not a company (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Some questions were left blank because this library is using KOHA, an open source ILS. We have no vendor and no technical assistance. A volunteer IT specialist has assisted the library director/librarian installing, setting up and updating the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We don't use a vendor, it's been put together and maintained by one librarian and one volunteer IT guru. The number of items in the collection is unknown because about half of it is still listed only in the card catalogue. Especially the sound recordings and smaller ephemeral publications. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha and DSpace at our institution were implemented by myself, as the Head of IT Department, and I'm providing support, migration, customization, implementation of additional modules, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Software is working well and upto our organization needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
For the maintenance of our Koha, we refer to Calyx group in Australia. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We've had KOHA for 6 months now as are getting over the initial shock. Our previous commercial library system was good, in hindsight excellent, and customer service worked very well. But idealistic an thrifty librarians that we are, we chose to switch to open code KOHA. We still believe in KOHA despite this current (old) version's unfriendly appearance, lack of user support and tendency to fall down a lot. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The authority control in Koha is deficient, there is a significant setback in relation to the previous ILS (VIRTUA) (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
1. Koha is most suitable ILS for all kind of Libraries - AAcademic, Public or Special irrespective of size and types of collection and kinds of patrons. 2. Need some improvements especially Serials control. 3. Customisation is a serious problem and need to depend on service provider as we don't get the required one from Koha Community (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
1. Updation of latest Koha software from time to time to the Library under AMC 2. Integration of Institutional repository and E-Resource management system like COREL ... (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in the process of moving from an externally hosted version of KOHA to bringing it in-house. Nothing wrong with the vendor, just have the capacity in the data centre and now that we know the system better are fine to host it ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have 6000 books in our collection, we have just over 200 students. Most books are non-fiction, 5000 approx., with fiction books numbering 1000 approx. Koha is simple and efficient for our school library. The vendor support team is helpful, especially for technical work like importing new students lists at the beginning of the school year and when updating software. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Installation, configuration and maintance service are made by staff at this library (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Actualmente tenemos el SIGB Kobli, versión perdonalizada de KOHA, valoramos pasar directamente a KOHA (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Suomeksi ks. https://koha-suomi.fi/ (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just changed over from Atriuum to the Aspencat library catalog system in August, 2017. That is why I can't answer the question about customer support having gotten better since we just switched over. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are totally satisfied with our ILS and the staff (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been a LibLime Koha library for about 6 years. For the last couple years we have been waiting for their new product based on code fusion of LibLime Academic and LibLime Public systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Able to integrate the ILS with the College's Active Directory which has increased user sanctification with support to College system. Next step will be looking at integrating fines with the College student management/financial system. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Reduction in number of physical items and increase in ebooks and electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The fork in the Koha development has led PTFS to the creation of a proprietary product, Bibliovation, that they are encouraging our consortium to migrate to. With Liblime and Bibliovation Koha, PTFS has lost track of the open-source origins of Koha. It is my understanding that we are no longer benefiting from the open source community and that when we, our consortium, pay for enhancements, these enhancements are not made available to the open source community. We are, in essence, paying for the development of THEIR proprietary products. This is is a bad business model for libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Don't actually have much interaction with vendor these days. The ILS runs, doesn't really give us any problems, but there's not much 'sparkle' about it either. Tech services staff are happy enough with it; public services staff seem bored with it and are where the impetus for investigating something new is coming from. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I was confused by the consortium vs. company questions. I'm not particularity impressed with LibLime but I love our consortium. The consortium is very timely in responding to issues. I feel that LibLime overall is not as proactive as it should be. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The number of items in collection depends on whether to include subscription stuff - when we got EDS we moved away from adding records for subscriptions into our catalog as maintaining them is a huge hassle. We have 150,000+ additional ebooks through EBSCO, 135,000+ discs from Naxos...etc. I don't really have a good way of keeping track of how much stuff we have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Nothing new - always good! (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Very satisfied with the product and services provided. When I need assistance I usually get it though but not often right away. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The ILS is great, fairly intuitive. It provides the user the opportunity develop and customise they own library management system. The support that Edmund and David provide is outstanding. The training and help modules are very good. I can't emphasis enough the fantastic support and online help that Edmund provides. Northern Territory Library with the support of Edmund and David have been initiative and implemented new ideas to improve access to all our collections, improve workflow and the professional develop administrators and staff who are administers of the system. [...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha is quite adequate for what is an open source elibrary, set up for a specific clientele but which has lots of other online users. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I remain more than happy with my Koha system and the vendor, Prosentient Systems, and hope never to have to change. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are using Koha and are very happy with the LMS for price and support from Prosentient. It's fit for purpose, given we are a small collection. Integration between Koha and EDS is next step we are investigating. We don't have many e-resources at this stage, just looking into this now. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current ILS is great for public and school libraries, but lacks robustness related to Course Reserves and some Cataloging features needed for an academic library. It is important for our accreditation to join the Prospector system of academic and research libraries, and Koha does not interact with Prospector, plain and simple. Therefore, we are planning to migrate to OCLC WorldShare next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Quite happy, esp. with the amount of customization available to us (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We moved to a new ILS and new support company over the summer soto a degree we are still assessing the ILS and company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The ILS we use is open source and managed and maintained by a limited company. As open source becomes more popular the demands/support requests on the company increase and thus it can be difficult for them to manage (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We've been impressed with the flexibility of Koha and have seen a real benefit to staff willing to invest time in learning SQL. PTFS have proved to be steady hands when responding to any larger support issue but have sometimes dragged their heels when assisting with smaller issues. I think this is just par for the course when working with a smaller company than our previous ILS supplier (SirsiDynix). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We do not use the acquisitions module due to the small amount we have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha manages our print resources but not our eResources, although there are catalogue records for eBooks and other eResources on Koha with links to EBSCO or to websites. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] forma parte de [...], no es por tanto, independiente para decidir cambios, u otro tipo de cuestiones sobre el SIGB. Tampoco se han tenido en cuenta las opiniones, valoraciones o necesidades del personal técnico de la biblioteca del [...] a la hora de diseñar el SIGB recientemente implantado. Con la empresa proveedora no hemos tenido ningún contacto, pues es la [...] a intermediaria (Library type: Archive - Special Collections; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
La biblioteca del Arquivo do Reino de Galicia forma parte de la Rede de Bibliotecas de la Xunta de Galicia y no tiene capacidad de decisión ni para seleccionar SIGB ni empresas de SIGB, por este motivo quedan sin responder las preguntas relacionadas con la empresa. La Rede de Bibliotecas de Galicia no ha tenido en cuenta ni las necesidades ni sugerencias que el personal técnico de la Biblioteca del ARG ha hecho a la hora de implementar el nuevo SIGB. (Library type: Archive - Special Collections; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
In July 2017, we migrated from Horizon to KOHA supported by Québec based Collecto (previously CCSR). This is part of a consortia service by this vendor. I believe that we are the 29th installation of KOHA in Québec's network of 48 community colleges. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Extremely satisfied with functionality and parameterisation offered with the Libero LMS and the proposed future of the software. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
LIBERO is fully web based system, 2012 was the last time we needed to install a client version. This year we moved to their cloud solution which we have found to have exceeded our expectations. Not having to worry about backups, disaster recovery, server security and maintenance to name just a few of the benefits have certainly reduced the stress involved in providing a ILS to our staff and members. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The staff at Insight Informatics have provided outstanding support in the implementation of our new Libero system. I would highly recommend them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Way behind with the WebOPAC, very outdated and none responsive. No APP either which is just expected nowadays. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Currently we use a different system for our digitized resources: Goobi (www.intranda.com). In my opinion an ILS could be extended to handle this too. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Very interested in FOLIO due to its aims and architecture, which seems very flexible. But it will be a long way to see running systems in Germany (with its very special conditions concerning data and consortia). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Very happy with the product and the service provided by Insight (Libero). It has integrated very well with our RFID implementation through FE Technologies. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I think that it is time for library management systems to move away from "staff-centric" platforms and instead move towards "patron-centric" platform. The patron's digital view of the library and ALL of the library's offerings (books, author talks, eresources, local history, digital programs etc) should be easy to use, transparent and similar to modern social media products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have recently changed ( 14 months ago) to this new supplier. Much better customer care. The system is liked by staff and students. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Having TLC means not having to have a systems librarian. They hold our hands when we need it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
while we are very happy with TLC, change in management may at some point consider open-source. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
wish our ILS responded quicker to suggestions/changes that our libraries want implemented. I understand it's not easy to enact these changes,but oftentimes the suggestions/changes would effect our work in a positive way and provide for easier tasks. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The lack of catalog speed with KOHA is a drawback at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Although the ILS had many features that our old ILS did not, the new ILS is still lacking in some areas. We would have liked demos of all the products that gave us bids. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Due to high cost of TLC and budget constraints, we are migrating to the State of Pennsylvania unified system (SPARK). This is not yet public information. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We were considering moving to Verso, but we felt like it would have been a huge step backwards and so we are not looking at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
As part of a consortium which encompasses libraries of all types and sizes, we are often at the mercy of others in the system. We feel that our current ILS does not meet our library's needs but we are also committed to our consortium. We are hoping that when we put out an RFP this winter, we will find a system that better meets our needs at a cost the smaller libraries in our system can afford. We would like a (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
TLC is surpassing their usual excellent level of customer support in 2017. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Considering migrating to new ILS System due to increase in cost each year (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
E-books and E-audio: additional 24,494 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
I do not know if our most recent ILS implementation was on schedule. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The [...] will post an RFP in 2018 for a new ILS System and Discovery option. In our new library building, planned for completion in 2019, we will implement an automated storage and retrieval system and our ILS must interface with the system. Our current vendor doesn't offer that capability and doesn't have plans to develop an interface. We're close to full implementation of WorldCat Discovery, but haven't been satisfied with OCLC support in implementation and there are still parts of our collection that aren't discoverable. We will decide whether or not to keep WC Discovery or migrate to another system based on RFP responses and solutions offered. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We need to use the ILS better to manage our electronic resources. It does a great job with those that we are using with it, but we have made a number of changes recently and due to staffing shortages, have not yet "caught up" integrating our ILS and our eresources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been considering a move to OCLC because it helps us move to a larger user community that offers the possibility of providing the ILS using a SaaS model. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
TLC is too complex for us. We have recently lost our main TLC trained person to retirement and find it difficult with new personnel to get the information we feel we need. The two we are considering are more intuitive. Also, we can add branches to the ILS much affordably. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We changed last year from client server software to a hosted solution with TLS. The transition was very smooth. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We recently upgraded to the latest version of Library.Solution, 5.0 (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The Library Corporation remains at the front of support and excellent customer service. In a day and age where it is simpler to offload customer service to a phone tree to manage the incoming calls, with The Library Corp, you always get a person on the phone when you call and that makes a big difference. And if the person can't answer the question right away then they will find someone who can. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I find that this ILS does an okay job, but after years with a better system I still experience a lot of frustration. For example, trying to run a report is fine if the the report you want to run is one they've already created, but if you want something specific, that they have yet to think of, then you're out of luck. I like being able to build my own searches and manipulating the data to do what I want. I'm also still waiting for the updated cataloging module, which was released in July but which I've heard nothing about. I think it boils down to this--there's a lot of rigidity to this ILS which is probably great for folks who don't have a lot of experience with an ILS, or a systems librarian, but which doesn't make me happy. Their customer service is amazing, but I am actively looking for a new ILS that give me the flexibility I need. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
This product is not particularly user-friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I was disappointed in our ILS vendor's decision to move to a new cataloging program that adds time and steps to the cataloging process, is not RDA compliant, does not allow catalogers to edit in MARC, and forces you into consolidated authorities. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Incredible customer service. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been quite satisfied with TLC, our current ILS vendor for the 15 years we have worked with them. For a few years they have been moving everything away from client-based to web-based. The latest piece to make the transition is cataloging. Our cataloger is very proactive and lets her voice be heard and she has a very dim view of the new cataloging program. Generally we think it is time after 15 years to take a serious look at what is out there in the market. But this new cataloging program has tipped the scales. We will not be upgrading anymore (because we will end up getting the new program) and we are in a search mode for a new ILS. We lean heavily toward Koha-ByWater Solutions in part because it is open source but also because of the outstanding support from ByWater Solutions. Ten or even five years ago we would not have said this. We hope to have a new ILS in place early in 2019, i.e. in the FY18-19. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I'm a first-time director, so questions about how my perceptions of TLC changed from year to year, I don't know. I actually used TLC in the last two libraries I was in as well, so that worked out well for me. I'm pleased with TLC and see no reason to change it up at this point in time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very satisfied with TLC (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have 21 years of experience as a school librarian, but this is only my second year at Bethlehem. I have used Follett most of my career. Using TLC Solutions at BASD the last two years have been very frustrating. It's not user friendly for cataloging or inventory purposes. The steps are too long to complete transactions, during a busy day. I prefer the ease and quick actions of Follett and I look forward to our conversion to Follett next year. Follett is also showcasing new online interfacing for the students. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
We would love the Discovery feature, but our budget has been cut. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The Cooperative moved to a hosted solution with TLC in September, keeping all of the same functionality. It was pretty seamless and all is working well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Considering jumping directly from ILS to Library Platform, instead of a separate discovery layer/system. Don't project making this move until fiscal 2019/20 ... at the earliest. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Customer support is simply out of this world. In fact, it is one of the main reasons we love TLC. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The company is overall very responsive to customer requests. The customer support group is usually pretty good, but sometimes I think they fail to completely read the support requests and either don't answer the question, or answer a question other than what has been asked so it may take a few iterations before they understand the real issue. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Great customer support, simple user interface, complicated back end. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our ILS does not really offer electronic resource management. What it does offer, we don't use, preferring our Discovery tool for the way our students work. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The one problem we have with this ILS is how it manages loose-leaf publications/continuing monographs. Simply put...it doesn't. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Library World is affordable and allows us our daily functions of circulating media. However, it is not helpful at all in reporting data for daily or annual reports. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Planeamos realizar la migración de nuestro sistema actual en un tiempo entre 1 y 3 años. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Looking at a Canadian company for ILS due to the exchange rates. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The support of the company is very poor. The institutional administrative changes of the librarians supervisors, which are not librarians, resulted in lack of support for daily library servicies and operatiions planning and problem solutins. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
A traditional ILS system doesn't meet the needs of a medical system. Almost all our resources are now electronic. Our patrons are now used to Google and other Internet searching tools. They expect to be able to find everything together. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
This continues to be a challenging market, especially for large and complex libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)
Millennium infrastructure has become a major stumbling block in integrating with new services or expanding current services. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Re a new ILS: I'm concerned mostly about support from the vendor. I hear about libraries migrating along with a cohort in which one seems to be expected to resolve issues along with other institutions that are in the same boat. Re open source ILS: things seem to be going in that direction, but we have neither the staff nor the expertise to customize an open source product. To get information about a new ILS, talking to sales reps is suspect--all things are great in their eyes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Long response time on customer support tickets. Bugs end up in software engineering for extended periods. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Limited information on overall satisfaction due to the fact that the person filling the survey hasn's been long in post. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
III's customer service and Millennium support continues to be wanting. We have managed to get slightly better customer service from them by complaining with enough regularity to their head of customer service and to the sales team that we had concerns. Now the majority of our tickets are assigned to their more skilled helpdesk staff, which helps, but service is still not as strong as it was 10 years ago. Losing off some of their longterm system experts when the company was acquired by the venture capital firm is a turn of events that continues to haunt the support desk. They also still seem to struggle with a volume of customer questions that is greater than their staff can handle, with more complex tickets going unassigned and ignored unless libraries complain regularly. It is my understanding that they have a long term strategy of fixing this by getting most of their Millennium libraries migrated to Sierra, which should allow them to streamline the expertise required of their helpdesk experts, but the road to implementing that solution may be fraught. ProQuest's support for Summon continues to be exceptional, and for this reason we were quite disappointed that we simply could not afford a jump to Alma for our underlying ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We will be signing a contract for a new ILS by the end of 2017. Our current ILS platform (Innovative Millennium) is no longer meeting our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Two of our branch libraries are already running on Koha. Our current version of Millennium has been indicated that it will not be supported by end of 2019. Efforts are underway to persuade the stakeholders to go for Koha or migrate to Sierra. Overally, Millennium is a solid system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Sometimes, the Library cannot keep abreast of software upgrades because of the additional payment for the software and for the hardware. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Currently Millennium doesn't accommodate our library needs such as social media integration, integration with other systems (finance, student information and etc.). In addition no more upgrades will be applied to the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Because we are part of the [...] resource sharing consortium, we have to use this ILS. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
There is so much change in leadership and staffing in the said company that sometimes one begins to wonder how durable the existence of the company will be in the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Library collection: Print Titles : 140,000 Print Items : 280,000 E-books (Perpetual) : 108,100 E-thesis (Perpetual) : 3100 Periodicals (print archive) : 3300 Library e-Resources : more than 150 online database containing thousands of journals, electronic books and articles (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative has fallen behind in technologies we need to manage e-resources, integrate with campus systems and provide an accessible platform to our users. They are working to catch up with ExLibris' Alma but we don't see the frequent updates and improvements to Sierra that are apparent in Alma. The eventual successor to Sierra, Polaris and Virtua may be a powerful system, but the question is when that would be. Academic libraries in our geographic area are migrating to Alma, which leads us to question whether Innovative will be able to focus its development efforts on the needs of academic libraries or if it will need to primarily meet the needs of its public library customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
We are likely moving to a shared consortial ILS in the next year or two, so we may end up with an ILS that is not our institution's top choice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
The library system of which we are a member has already studied and committed to staying with Innovative Interfaces, Sierra upgrade. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in the middle of an RFP process. We do know that we could upgrade our current Millennium product to Sierra should constraints (time, money, expertise, availibility of a good spot in the vendor's queue) dictate - but we are hoping not to have to do so. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We recently migrated from self-hosted Millennium to vendor-hosted Millennium. The support for that was good. The vendor-hosted environment is good, too. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] shares the [...]y's system. The number of items listed above is for the [...] We will be migrating to Alma in July 2018. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Musac is becoming very clunky and unreliable. We currently have an issue with it crashing constantly. Our inhouse IT personnel and Musac have been working on it, but can't seem to find a solution. We would love to upgrade to AccessIt, but having just been refurbished, funding doesn't allow this at present. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are an online only library with only electronic resources. We no longer use a traditional ILS, although we do use the EBSCO Discovery System as the main gateway to our electronic resources. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small)
We are a completely digital library with no physical campus or collection. Our electronic holdings that we own number under 100 ebooks; the collection is mostly subscription based. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small)
We feel that we cannot afford to go automated as we are a small, rural library with limited resources. We are doing fine with our card catalogue. South Central Kansas Library system takes care of our computers or any pother problem we might have. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are not automated as of yet, but hope to be by the end of 2018. I'll be able to take a survey at that time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
Not automated. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
436,570 for print and non-book materials and around 100,000 eresources (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I sooooo appreciate the guys at MediaFlex, and refer them to everyone!! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS is a great value. Media Flex offers very responsive customer service. OPALS has seen some very user-friendly improvements (e.g., search suggestions tied to holdings). But some search modes are rather imprecise; and collection management for eSerials, microfiche, and serials could be better. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
OPALS updates and new features to its ILS continue to amaze me. These updates and new features further enhances its accessibility to our collection and ease of use. The customer service is the best. Webinars on updates and new features are available at my convenience. The quarterly newsletters are full of great information. I love OPALS! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[..] (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Have made use of the relatively new provision to add electronic resources to our catalog. Currently adding just PDF files that relate to our congregation's history, to make ino available for research and activities related to 150th anniversary. This has been a welcome provision. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Great value for money, and good consistent customer service. Some of the features are more appropriate for a school library, and the system works best with Dewey. For example we are unable to correctly print LC call labels after cataloguing, but we just do them manually. Overall we are very satisfied with this product. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Bibliofiche continues to provide excellent customer support for OPALS. It is continually adding to the functionality of the product yet remaining affordable for small schools. The product works well in a bilingual (Arabic/English) setting, and the Arabic interface continues to be improved. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
If this were a true union catalog, admin duties would be much easier. Wish the user interface had more customization for use with older students. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
OPALS' customer support is phenomenal. Basic acquisitions and serials modules would be helpful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in our tenth year using OPALS. The updates change the system, but the support remains at the same high level that attracted us to it almost a decade ago. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS continual updates are great! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It is an understatement that I enjoy working with OPALS immensely. OPALS has transformed the [...] Libraries, and I am deeply grateful for all the talented and patient OPALS support staff helping us here at [...]. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We do love OPALS. It is a wonderful asset to our organization. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Service is outstanding and they actually implement changes suggested by elementary school librarians like me ! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Excellent system for our library and very prompt service when needed. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Year ten using OPALS and all's well. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Awesome!!! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
So glad the libraries in my area pointed me to OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love the frequent updates, friendly tech support, and users meetings. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Responsive development and technical support for the past nine years. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used OPALS for over twelve years. The program has changed with the times, but customer support not. It's superlative! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am so thankful we switched to OPALS!! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used this system for seven years and are pleased with what it does for our members and staff. It handles our linguistic needs well and service is outstanding. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
An excellent system. We give high marks to their technical support team and consultant librarians. They even answer our cataloging questions. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Des services de soutien technique exceptionnels! (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The updates are timely, support is responsive and Webinar tutorials make it seem like we are working in the same place. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We like OPALS and its service. We have recommended it to other libraries in our area. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
What a game changer OPALS is for so many libraries in our organization! (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Year two and we remain impressed by OPALS and its responsive technical assistants. This year, we implemented self-service checkout. Students easily adapted to it, and our limited staff was freed up for research tutoring and collection development and digital resource integration. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use the system to manage and provide access to over 40,000 digital resources, in four languages. Teachers access all of these resources from any school within our region. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We adopted OPALS this year. The technology and support have been outstanding. Not sure how to answer question 7 about service being better or worse than last year, so we marked "9" since OPALS support reputation is one of several reasons we switched systems. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The OPALS support group made our migration painless. We were pleasantly surprised that their services extended well beyond their system. We greatly appreciated professional library consulting services and not receiving an invoice for them! (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Staff is dedicated, passionate and better capable of meeting our needs over our previous vendor. They went above and beyond to clean up our records when we migrated. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I appreciate the system's library management capabilities. Students especially like the single login database authentication and discovery searching they started using this year. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Set up was smooth and we’re delighted with the program and the assistance. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We cannot comment on service improvement because this is our first year using OPALS. Neighboring libraries report positive experiences. Our migration was painless and the first year has been great so far. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This year we started using self service checkout. It has worked very well and freed me to develop student research skills. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS data processing staff migrated over 20,000 of our rudimentary records to an OPALS catalogue for our board to evaluate. They actually fixed many data inconsistencies at no cost! Their librarian instructors provided free tutoring, enabling us to thoroughly evaluate their system using our own catalogue data. Although we are 16,000 km from their offices, we came to feel they were "just down the road." Finally, although our professionally diverse committee took five months to compare and evaluate ILS technologies, we never felt any "sales" pressure to make a decision. Even before we issued the purchase order, we felt comfortable in our new technology neighbourhood. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Customer service is incredibly prompt! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
There is a large shift in our library to eBooks and digital resources. Digital to print ratio is five to one now and OPALS handled this transition (including authentication) well. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS service has been excellent. The staff knowledge and understanding of our technical, operational and academic requirements is outstanding and we compliment them on their product and staff. (Library type: Technical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS/MediaFlex is very responsive to changes in the industry as well as client requests. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library migrated to OPALS recently so we cannot comment on whether support has improved or not over the past year. However, the system setup and data migration was efficient, training is professional and we are pleased with the technology so far. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used OPALS for the past 12 years. A great support team listens to its community and improves it every year. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has been a dream to work with. The support people are very pleasant, extremely knowledgeable and helpful. I would recommend this system to everyone. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS is doing a great work specially for those who are living in the third world. This is a very good system for library management. We encourage using this system among Sudanese Librarians (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We implemented OPALS in January 2008. This is our tenth anniversary and we can still write that the system and the people supporting it are terrific! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am just learning how to navigate OPALS in my new position. I have used Follett Destiny for many years. OPALS is not as intuitive as Destiny, so I'm having difficulty figuring out how to complete some tasks. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
OPALS continues to be an excellent option for [...]. Their newest enhancements increase the ability to support curriculum. And their Arabic interface continues to improve. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
En estos momentos nos encontramos mogrando al nuevo SIGB (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Nos mudamos. Nuestra nueva dirección postal es: [...] (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Nous sommes un pays en voie de développement, par conséquent la bibliothèque ne dispose pas de budget. Nous nous contentons des logiciels libres. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I never know who my sales person is as that changes quarterly it seems. Since the III takeover, Polaris customer service has suffered. It takes too long to get issues resolved. I will say that once I get a support person involved they are knowledgeable and efficient. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Polaris support team is great! Innovative charges for training webinars are outrageous for a small library. Documentation about Polaris has decreased since taken over by Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
III removed easy access to the Polaris portal. They focus upon Sierra and Millennium products. Only when I speak with a Polaris representative do I receive the most thorough information. The technology site manager is helpful to a degree, but usually staff can resolve concerns before asking her. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not deal directly with our ILS. The [...] so for its member libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The Polaris customer support group is wonderful. The only reason I couldn't score it with the full marks (9) is because the move to the new ticketing interface has caused time lags with ticket resolution and hiccups in communication. This is expected with a move to a new (and not as good) ticketing system, so I'm sure those hiccups and time lags will disappear by this time next year. I do worry about staff retention. Many of the best Polaris customer support staff have left III for other opportunities or moved to a different department that doesn't interact with customers. One thing that Polaris did very VERY well before it was acquired by III is make each customer and (most) staff feel like they mattered. You could tell that Polaris valued their customer support staff and department, while III seems to think customer support staff are easily replaced and interchangeable. I am concerned about the loss of institutional and product knowledge that disappears as wonderful staff flee customer support. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since being acquired by Innovative, product development and support for Polaris remains very strong. Administrative support has deteriorated significantly. Obtaining current product documentation, basic ILS user training and refresher training, obtaining quotes for new products, and accurate and timely invoicing is very challenging. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our biggest issue with Innovative Interfaces is pricing. The yearly increases have been about 6%, but recently they have redone other pricing. For instance a staging fee for setting up a PAC server was $300 in 2014. The quote I just got was for $600. They also want $700 for a 6 hour webinar. They have supposedly adjusted some other pricing down, but I haven't seen it. Customer Service wise, our Site Manager is phenomenal and my contact for new services is pretty great too. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The vendor has good customer service, but the cost of the ILS is very expensive. Its backend interface is also not intuitive. It works, but you need staff who are trained due to the high learning curve. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The relationship that we had with Polaris before it was purchased by Innovative Interfaces is gone. Ongoing late billing issues are pervasive. Lack of two way communication. Users Group Enhancement process appears to have been hijacked by Innovative and there is no feedback on the status of much needed enhancements. Innovative seems more interested in Revenue Retention. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
There have been significant changes to the sales and contracting structure at Innovative. This has made purchasing new products and services cumbersome. In the long run, the changes might have benefits, but we're not seeing them yet. Support staff try to be helpful, but also seem to be overwhelmed. While ticket closure times had been improving, they seem to have slipped again over the past few months. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
As for acquiring Discovery Interface, the answer No is not reflective of the true answer, No Idea. As for going to Open Source, it was mentioned a few years back by this librarian and was soundly rejected. However, there has been some interest mentioned in the last year that it may now be a possibility; but can be considered unsubstantiated rumors. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since being acquired by III prices have increased for some things but the level of service remains top-notch. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Many changes in company staff, always a concern as to who to contact with questions or concerns. Small customer no contact with the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We're just changing over to Polaris' Leap interface for circulation. We find it very easy to use, and staff has had little problem changing over to it. Unfortunately, Leap isn't ready for use by Tech Services, so that group still works from the traditional Polaris platform. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are by and large satisfied with Polaris, but we are exploring open source options because of the enormous cost savings. Working with an open source backend and a discovery layer frontend seems like an increasingly viable option. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not have direct control over the ILS - it is managed by the County Library as part of our local consortium. Many support issues are referred to the vendor. The system really isn't robust enough for our needs, particularly in large record set processing and reporting, but we do not have the resources to migrate to a stand-alone system. This mismatch between our needs and the system accounts for our rating its performance as lacking, where it might not in a public library setting. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
ILS providers need to employ more librarians as programmers (or more librarians need to become programmers) so that library priorities and needs can be better met by automation - like creating a temporary shelf location (for displays), that reverts back to the permanent location when an item is checked back in. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We moved to Polaris which is a good system for public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Still getting to know how Innovative will work with it's acquisition of Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Many of our issues are likely due to the Consortium Library that oversees the ILS and the parameters they set, not the ILS company itself. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have been a bit frustrated by customer support since Polaris was merged into III. Previously we had a designated support contact and now we work with a general helpdesk, and we feel it is more difficult to get difficult problems resolved. On the whole, though, the system works quite well for us and we like it. We are not considering changing ILS anytime in the foreseeable future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
It would be difficult to implement because of staffing issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are not happy with POALRIS now that Innovative has purchased them. Innovative is awful! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are happy with our Polaris ILS and the direction that development is heading with it. We wish the authority file was more robust and better implemented into the catalog, however (e.g.: public users have no access to cross-references in the authority file!). Re the questions evaluating customer support: In general, we are very satisfied with Innovative's *technical* support of our Polaris ILS and would rank this higher (9 on each of the customer support questions) if that was the sole factor. We are dissatisfied with their general customer relations--the areas responding to questions about billing, training programs, etc. We feel that much was lost in regards to customer relations when Innovative purchased Polaris and moved customer relations to the Innovative headquarters. Our questions will go unanswered until follow-up messages are sent; emailed communications are curt; etc. Overall, though, we are satisfied with the product at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I find Innovative to be extremely responsive and their support is always top notch. We really like Polaris. We aren't able to afford the additional services (like Discovery) that are offered at this time. The third party software is probably our biggest challenge with III, as everything adds to the cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris is so much better that our old system but there are several aspects of it that are clumsy and time consuming for staff to use and it doesn't seem to change even though problems are brought up repeatedly to the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris gets the job done for the most part, but it is extremely clunky and not user-friendly. The interface is also extremely outdated looking - it looks like something from the 1990s! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ever since it was acquired by III, customer service for Polaris has gotten worse. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris is a great, stable, fairly trouble-free product that I have never regretted purchasing. We never had any issues with Polaris until Innovative bought them. Polaris' technology support is still fantastic, but their sales and customer representative support has failed in the past year. We repeatedly have to request information on pricing and information for new products as our rep almost never follows through, and we weren't able to get firm information on pricing for LEAP, server hosting, or their new bundled pricing model. Also, one of the things that made Polaris valuable to us was that when you purchased their ILS, you received the whole product and weren't required to purchase things piecemeal. Now it feels that every new thing is a separate charge and no one can tell you what that charge is or it's so outrageous, you pass it up. We are not considering a change in our ILS at this time, but if Polaris continues down the path of unaffordability and poor response, we most likely will look at Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
As a member of a system I do not have much say in what system we use. I have one vote out of 34. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have found Polaris support to be stellar. We've always received that day help by knowledgeable staff. The product can be a bit creaky but is still very serviceable and we are very much looking forward to the continued development of LEAP. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are in a mixed type library system, with primarily public and school libraries. While the catalog is not especially friendly for academic libraries, our alternatives are slim at present. We are not desirous of operating our own system as a standalone, and the academic consortium in the state is in the process of migration. We hope to be able to consider that consortium when its migration is complete, but we are likely to be where we are until at least 2021. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We continue to find the product and the technical support from Innovative for the Polaris ILS to be reliable and responsive. The customer support for business operations--quotes, invoicing, billing--is in a state of disarray. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Members of their financial department all need to be on the same page as each person has a different answer to the same question. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are an all-digital library, so cannot truly evaluate the vendor/product for print items. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We were very happy with Polaris' service following implementation but have seen changes in responsiveness since the ILS was acquired by III. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Innovative is still going through the growing pains of recent acquisitions and support still suffers. Supporting and developing multiple products is difficult and we are certainly seeing that development is slow. No effort to bring back PCI-DSS and cash drawer management. Only recently addressing responsive design in the catalog. No interest in addressing ADA in the PAC. We still feel that we have lost more than we gained in purchasing Polaris. I haven't seen the customer service that they were famous for. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are a branch library in a larger consortium, with many sub-collections and services that differ from branch to branch. As such, when looking at other ILS products, it is very difficult to ascertain how well the ILS product supports differing levels of services and collections among the constituent branches. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I feel Polaris is still experiencing growing pains since its purchase by III. While the customer service from Polaris staff is still good, I can't help but feel a company trying to maintain 4 different ILS systems cannot maintain all systems on equal footing. The accounting department still leaves a lot to be desired and trying to make changes on one's maintenance account takes weeks instead of the day or two that it should. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We don't deal directly with the vendor, so most of the above questions are guesses as they don't apply. We send ALL of our questions to the Illinois Heartland Library System. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Polaris Library Systems, from whom we purchased our ILS, we rate 9. Innovative, who is our current vendor, we rate 3. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since Polaris was purchased by iii the customer support has been going downhill. The responses as well as the response time doesn't seem to be a focus. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We experienced a major crisis this past year with our ILS (our server was hit with ransomware). We were very impressed with the software engineer team (several who abbreviated their 4th of July holiday to help us out). Most of these folks were originally from Polaris. However, from a general support area, we've seen a fair decline in response time and we've been totally unimpressed with the attitude of leadership. Overall, it would seem that Polaris has been swallowed up and will continue to be minimized in years to come. Very sad to see as a long-time customer of the product that we know and love. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I can't answer if support has gotten better or worse as we are in the first year with this ILS (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Currently transitioning to Polaris LEAP. Interesting to note that processing features integral to technical service operations were not implemented and we still rely on the original Polaris product for these services. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're overall very happy with Polaris and the support we receive from them. Response times for support tickets we've submitted has noticeably improved within the last year. One area we're not quite as happy with is that since Polaris was acquired by Innovative Interfaces, most/all of their online training sessions that were once free are now at-cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We find overall that Polaris provides a better product and better customer service than SIRSIDynix. We were a SIRSIDynix library for ~10 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I do not work directlywith nor have any input into the ILS system. It is all managed centrally. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We've had several issues with year with the ILS and on at least one occasion a big problem was pushed was taken very lightly by the vendor. They only put one support person on the case and that person was not very knowledgeable. We would not consider open source as it lacks support from a vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
WE are pleased with the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I would like deeplinks to be easier to create and share from the PAC. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris: Terrific and stable product with very, very few bugs in production. Odd product decision to charge additional fees for its API (Sierra, competing product from same parent company, offers its API free-of-charge). LEAP: Web-based interface version of staff client. New; still fairly beta, but functional. Automatic receipt (and simultaneous "normal") printing difficult due to product's environment (web browser). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I feel like Polaris is constantly playing catch-up with trends. Additionally, when we transitioned to RFID, I didn't feel very supported by Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are highly pleased with the support we get from Polaris (iii) and with the functionality of Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We went live with Leap, Polaris' browser based circulation interface. We have been very happy with that decision and would recommend other public libraries do the same if they choose Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
I find since the acquisition; Polaris to Innovative, customer service is not as prompt. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The total ILS is a mashup of the ILS (Polaris) and a bit of several integrated systems like POS system, Print release and Discovery systems from various vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of a consortium and do not directly interact with ILS company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a school library, Polaris does not work for our unique needs. It is impossible to neatly print a set of overdue notices, as everything is meant to be done online. It is also impossible to easily group students together into cohorts. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Overall very satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
the comments above all pertain to ILS vendor and not the consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ILS is totally managed by our Coop. We locally really have no control, but are satisfied with it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris software updates seem to be releasing with more bugs than in the past. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Polaris' public catalog is severely lacking in usability. Spell check brings up words not in the catalog, which is a minor and annoying problem. Worse is the ability to find a DVD title among the rather large results set you get back. Maybe it is the way my consortium as set up the initial search page but the landing page only allows a keyword and format search. Finding what you want from the initial result set is next to impossible. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
All tech help provided by our library system. I have had zero contact with anyone at Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative is not customer focused like Polaris was prior to the acquisition. Innovative does not realize that libraries have limited budgets and also the response time on getting quotes for anything has become terrible. Our direct support "site manager" is very good and attentive. None of my comments are reflective of the site managers. All of our issues are with the new corporate culture. We are now customers and just another account number, we are no longer partners. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Particularité de REGARD. Dans les pages de résultats de nos DVDs, sur chaque titre, nous avons ajouté un champ de la bande annonce du film sur YouTube. Specification of REGARD. In the results page of our DVD, on each title , we are add a field of movie trailer on YouTube. See french section, for best viewing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The support from ResourceMate is quite good (it should be, we pay an annual fee for support on top of the fee for the the software). RM is not as intuitive as I would like, and it doesn't seem to have the capability to be used with an app. Most ILS programs are a bit over-the-top for our needs as we are a very small library. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Jaywill has been purchased by Harris. I don't know how that will affect the program in the future. I just discovered your technology report and that's powerful information for any library seeking ratings on a system. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I'm currently satisfied with the tech support. In general, the techs have a fast response time and solve issues quickly. However, I'm not happy with sales. We spend months waiting for responses each time we contact sales. When I finally get a response it's usually incomplete. It's amazingly hard to buy things from them. III also appears to have eliminated the Library Rep position and our unresponsive sales person is now suppose to be our overall account manager". III has also changed the enhancement process. Unfortunately, the new process seems to focus on flashy new development instead of fixing current usability and workflow issues. We can still submit problems via tech support but there isn't a way for other libraries to look at the problem and add a "me too" vote. The new process is designed to be product agnostic with both Polaris, Sierra, and VTLS (?) libraries. Unfortunately, there's still such a wide difference in capabilities that the systems need completely different functionality to enhance their existing capabilities. I am also concerned that these enhancements are not going to be included in the core ILS and will instead require us to buy additional products (such as Decision Center). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I have nothing to do with purchase or implementation of the ILS system, so I'm not sure if my information is accurate on some of it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] is in the process of consolidating ILL and is undetermined at this point, but I believe they are working on adding a discovery layer but it would not be up to our library to decide. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
innovative has made major strides in customer service and overhauling their ILS products. They could simplify statistical analysis and use of Create Lists. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The current ILS was simply created for an earlier time in library services, and doesn't meet the current needs of the library nor does it work as an integrated whole with the wealth of electronic updates available today, nor does it provide the best available statistics reporting capabilities. We are considering moving to a much more uptodate and improved system with Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
This year has been a milestone year for us and Innovative Interfaces as they demonstrated exceptional goodwill and professionalism in making it possible for us to transition off their Millennium legacy system and on to their Sierra system and hosted in the cloud for the next five years with improved return on our investment and new features and functionality to help us serve our users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Overall we are happy with Sierra. However, there is a lot of functionality that has been promised that has either not been implemented, or requires additional expenditures or requires a developer on staff that would create using APIs. These are functions that should be standard (and in the case of checking e-books out via WebPAC, promised by sales but not delivered). Also, organizationally, the company seems to be mired in chaos. Various wings of the Sales organization do not seem to communicate to one another; product development strategy unclear (Leif suddenly gone, no announcement except to announce replacement). I will say the tech support (people) is/has been great, many improvements over the last several years. Some of the tools need improvement (online web help, multiple sites for support information, articles need updating, etc.), but the people are always pleasant, responsive and seem very knowledgeable about the product. Big improvement over a few years ago. These folks are a big factor in NOT changing over to a different ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The product is OK, but the constant reorganization with our current vendor Innovative is concerning. I think the CEO is good, but who will provide leadership in product development? The sales team appears to be in constant turnover and customer support is hit or miss. I'm starting to wonder if Innovative can survive at this rate. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The customer service and communication with anyone in the company has gone rapidly downhill. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The company was better when it was run by the founder, and things have deteriorated since it was sold to an investment company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative has made a concerted effort in the last year to more effectively respond to customer service requests, and their response rate has definitely improved. There is still evidence, though, that the company's early balance of service and profit has shifted significantly to the profit side. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are happy with Innovative, though they are expensive and our lack of a discovery interface is a direct result of cost. We are looking into OCLC Worldshare Discovery simply because it is part of our OCLC subscription and not necessarily because we feel that it will provide us what we need. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our district financial support for a library system is limited and challenging; frequent turnover in finance means that we are continually re-educating our district CFO on why we need funding, etc. We have no discovery platform and are unable to acquire other tools that have costs associated with them. The state just allocated funding for a shared [...] library services platform (with discovery). The selection process is just getting started and we do not expect to migrate at my college for at least a few more years. However, we are holding out hope for this as a solution for the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Some of our dissatisfaction relates to older modules for patrons notably the program and events module and the booking module. The Encore interface is so nice that we wish all of these other modules directed to it. We went through two PM's during our 4 month migration and have lost our sales rep in Canada. We've been challenged with replacing servers under the current contract but the Support has been very helpful. The IUG and lists are great and a really valuable resource. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
My unhappiness with customer support at III is derived from our consortium support often stating, "III won't do that" in response to our requests. It is possible that III would "do that" for us and our consortium IT assumed they would not. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We're about 2 years from a contract renewal date- so we're just beginning to consider options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra is lacking many of the features and usability conventions we expect in modern applications. The online catalog could also use a significant update. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Innovative Interface's Sales Team has been slow in responding to our inquiries this has resulted in a slower implementation of new products and in obtaining bids for newer pricing models. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Note: 832,829 bib records; 295,759 physical items. Over half of our coll'ns are now e-resources. Note: recently implemented Digital Commons (Institutional Repository) from bepress. It is not directly integrated with the ILS. Used for archival and scholarly publications. Note: We do not have the ERM module from III, so we don't have that tool to assist with billing & management of e-resources. But the online catalog handles the links to full text with no problem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative Interfaces has become a very different company. It could not handle the recent company acquisitions. The staff training and development for customer support was clearly lacking. And it was overwhelmed by the responsibility of so many libraries moving to a hosted platform. They seem to be tackling a lot of these changes and there are better results now, but expectations had dropped so low as to not be an impressive or remarkable difference. I blame the massive turnover of staff (especially how many 'old timers' were let go or encouraged to move on. It was not a good example of succession planning. They are trying to act all snazzy now as if they were Salesforce at a Dreamforce event. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
iii needs to figure out more ways to move this software into the future. Although we can do a lot more customization and reports through the use of APIs and SQL queries, it should not be on the burden of the library to provide this development work - the ILS needs to move forward on its own, as well. I also wish iii's discovery layer had more bells & whistles. No development seems to be done on it. You hear ideas from iii but development does seem to be slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative has been making some large strides to improve upon issues within the company from the past few years. Releases have been regular and generally avoided introducing new bugs, new features are being introduced and support has greatly improved. The introduction of their new enhancements process and hints of future developments are both very promising for the near future as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
During that past year, we have noticed that Innovative Interfaces has applied a greater depth of technology to move towards being a 'real' competitor in ILMS, in particular integration between Innovative Interface modules other ILMS vendors re API's. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra development and frequency of upgrades is good, plus availability of APIs. Roadmap communication is good, but not always stable, which can affect planning. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
In the academic library market, it's pretty clear Sierra is way behind Alma in terms of development. However, we have a positive impression of Innovative as a company, Sierra meets most of our current requirements and its tech support has improved significantly over the last couple of years, to the point where we're really pleased with it. That's fine for the moment but we'll be reviewing the LSP market in the next couple of years and it doesn't look great for Innovative when that happens. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Software develops on a frequent basis. Well researched and implemented. API releases increase interfunctionality. New Knowledge Base and ERM functionality still not fully released and fully integrated. It will happen but currently having to record in two systems. Confusing and laborious. Excellent local company representative has made a huge difference. representing regional requirements could otherwise be ignored. Very disappointed in Encore Duet. We had to withdraw as it was so bad. Keyword searching only, no author or title or subject searches. Inconsistent results. Currently have Encore and EDS as separate interfaces so we can have an exclusive print catalogue search as well as an integrated print & eresources search. Export to EndNote from Encore in MARC format is not working which is a huge concern for an academic library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex Libris has engaged in highly unethical behavior, such as saying that our consortium is leaving our current vendor, and telling the public as well as us current members false information. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Innovative Interfaces continues to offer substandard support and to nickel-and-dime us for minor requests. EBSCO's EBSCOhost/EDS interface is getting stale, and mobile support is poor. EBSCO's EDS API is quite easy to work with and powerful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The ILS is provided by a local company after an international competition in the framework of [...] . 26 academic libraries acquired SIERRA and all catalogues migrated to only one. Subsequently, given the low number of personnel in each library things are moving but not very fast. For instance, we cannot yet create new subject headings, but work only with the existent ones. We have to keep this information written so to enter egain the system (when everything will be on place) and write the new heading. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
INNovative has alleged improvements in customer service lately but, although we can't say we've seen things fall apart, I don't believe we can say we've experienced any improvement. And, in some cases, due to III's recent employee turnover, we've found a greater amount of difficult in getting responses - or accurate responses - to certain product and maintenance inquiries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The collection number is much higher than previously due primarily to EBSCO eBooks being included in the collection figure. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Only in the past 3-4 months (Summer-Fall 2017) have things started to turn around as far as customer service/account management from Innovative. We were extremely frustrated at renewal time last year, but it was too late to consider changing to another ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Overall, we are satisfied with our ILS. Sierra's functionality is quite robust, but some "modules" or features such as ERM are cost-prohibitive for us. We have no plans to migrate in the near future, but we are keeping an eye on FOLIO (and those companies who would offer services to support the software). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library system takes care of all interaction with Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The expense or cost of the Sierra ILS is partially why we are not more satisfied with our level of service from Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] just completed the RFP process this year. The RFP was published in January 2017 and we are in the last stages of contract negotiations. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative Interfaces appears to be in dissaray. Responses to Help Desk queries vary considerably, with more in depth questions requiring many followups with unclear information from vendor. Additionally, account representatives have been unresponsive, and at times, it has been difficult to identify who actual acoount reps are. This is amply documented on the vendor's Sierra listserv where other libraries recount their own difficulties identifying and receiving responses from their reps. We have concerns that III's future is not guaranteed, a sad state of affairs from the leading ILS vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
It takes too long to load and or open on my computer. Takes too long to shut down. Do not like the running of reports for late notices etc. Once you run them, they are lost. That shouldn't be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We went through the RFP process this year, considered our other options and to our own surprise decided to stay with our current company. While there are a lot of issues with Sierra, other products are problematic in their own ways. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra it is not a new generation ILS just a Millennium update. Innovatve and EBSCO are not working together to have a good system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are mostly satisfied with Innovative. The search facility only offers single term searches, such as author, title, keyword, subject, ISBN, or classmark, so it's not possible to combine an author/title search, for example. But there is an advanced search facility which allows one to narrow down searching on any of these terms, so that's an improvement. Also, the list of search terms is very limited. If one wants to search for information contained in an item record, like an accession number, one has to switch into a different module to do this, on something called 'create lists', which is a bit annoying. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] consortium shared services platform under active consideration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
most of the Sierra "release your data" to what & why? just make thing work rock solid. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
I costi di assistenza/manutenzione annua iniziano ad essere alti in seguito ai tagli alle finanze delle Università italiane, per cui stiamo monitorando con attenzione gli sviluppi relativi a ILS Open Source (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We would like to see more enhancements to the core III Sierra product. The enhancement process has been broken for several years, and the development efforts seem to have gone to new products more than the core modules. Interfacing with other products continues to be clunky. When we take the time to tell III what we need, the suggestions go to "software engineering" and never get implemented. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are satisfied with Sierra. Innovative seems to be offering the best system for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated to Sierra in August 2016. We are a member of a state consortium and will comply with ILS changes as needed to maintain membership in this cost sharing/cost avoidance organization. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra is okay as an ILS but customer support is very poor (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Staff turnover at iii has been a cause for concern this year. Support was improving early this year but more recently has degraded. [...] has many resources that enable us to bypass the need for services from the ils vendor. Our demands for the ils are lower than normal because we develop our own discovery layer and we implement third party products readily. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are considering Koha only in relationship with one or more of the state's county law libraries. We do not have internal expertise or money to hire it for an implementation, and the largest county law library has already gotten theirs set up. Also, as a legal research library, our physical collection is far less fundamental to our daily work, and our database vendors are not even slightly interested in working with libraries to help create fully integrated discovery products interfaces to pull physical & digital collections together. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated from Voyager to Sierra during the spring and early summer of 2017. We've been live on all phases of Sierra since late June of this year, thus we've only had about 5 months of experience from which to draw. That is why we left blank the question about their customer support in the last year. We use EBSCO's A-Z Publication Finder to manage all of our electronic resources and have not used the ERM in Sierra, nor do we plan to in the near future. This is because we have been using EBSCO's product for so long and are very happy with it. That is why we left blank the question about managing electronic resources through our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As we have an ILS and a Discovery service from different vendors, I would like to be able to answer this survey for each vendor (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
III is struggling to meet deadlines for their newer products; Wish III would innovate more as some "next gen" systems are; Having trouble connecting with the correct staff at III to solve problems; Sierra is strong in managing print resources, but still has not fully found an effective way to handle eresources; Not interested in open source ILS at the moment due to the lack of options of robust ILS to serve our mission; Used and appreciate the new Sierra app Mobile Worklists; Looking forward to exploring options opening up with the use of Sierra APIs and hopefully even more access and robustness in this area; (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Estamos implementando Encore Duet como herramienta de descubrimiento, pero aún no en producción. Muchos problemas en la configuración y la estabilidad y mal gestión de las incidencias por parte de la empresa en general en todo el proyecto (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
we started cataloging with Sierra on July (only cataloging with de Consortia). We have implemented Sierra in all our library processess for 2 weeks (cataloging, circulation, serials, acquisitions). ERM is not implemented yet. We are also implementing Discovery (but we have serious problems so maybe on January we will go on) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra is fine and the customer support too. We're considering to acquire a new Discovery tool because Encore or Encore Duet lack of important functionalities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Innovative has made changes to thier support in the last year in an attempt to improve, but I don't believe it has. Some problems have been fixed, but others have replaced them. It is now almost impossible to get a person on the phone. While some tickets are addressed promptly others just sit with no response for months or more. Innovative seems to be less and less interested in (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are now on our own version of VuFind, and no longer use Pika to any significant degree. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are a member of a consortium that uses Innovative Interfaces, so don't really have the choice to migrate unless the consortium does. Purchasing and implementing new products has continued to be difficult (non-responsive salespeople who, when they respond, don't have answers about poorly documented products and seem to have to beg to get their own organization's IT staff involved in a sales call). Our implementation of their Single Sign On product has so far dragged on for four months, and our campus IT staff find both the design of the product and the implementation process to be very bizarre and out-of-date. On the plus side, Innovative's AWS hosting service has been extremely reliable and trouble-free (albeit expensive). Before moving to hosting, our system would frequently slow down to the point of being unusable, and it could be difficult to get Innovative support to respond in a timely manner. Since moving to hosting, the slowdowns don't happen any more. It's also nice to have Innovative do software upgrades for us, since before hosting, our self-upgrades almost never went by the book and always necessitated a panicked phone call to Innovative support (generally followed by panicked waiting for them to respond). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)
The Sierra migration went smoothly, although there are a few remaining issues that are taking time to resolve. Customer Services remains inconsistent. Sometimes we hear back in a timely manner, other times there has to be several follow up emails and/or phone calls before getting someone to help with an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative continues to be in turmoil with its leadership changes. Support is intermittent and unreliable. Some of the support people try very hard to assist with problems, but management should figure out the direction of the company and then stick to a plan and the promises made for product development. It is very difficult to be the ILS administrator for a consortium when the vendor is not very supportive and reliable. I am still waiting for the account plan promised in 2016. Innovative is developing and selling Sierra for academics. Polaris is their product for public libraries. If that is true, then we should be able to migrate to Polaris for free as an upgrade. The company never promoted Sierra to our consortium as a product for Academic libraries. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
It seems that Innovative is in transition with their services. Customer service has gotten a little better but customer sales has declined. We feel we are just a pay source for Innovative and not a partner as it was in the distant past. We remain open to other ILS options but budget and priorities exclude the need to change at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Free stats reporting tools are very primitive. Purchased tools are expensive. Customer support has improved greatly over the past year, although can still fall short if not picked up by a knowledgeable person at the start. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Customer Service is a bit slow, but they seem to be very knowledgeable. Training was exceptional when we first signed up and as we were migrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Frustrated with Encore. Intend to discontinue and use Ebsco Discovery without Encore. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I had $50,000 to spend and their sales team would simply not respond. Got kicked up to higher management who said their lawyers would draft up a quote. Gave up on that product after hearing nothing. Then tried to order a small little add-on and they require us (and therefore our legal affairs) to sign the quote first indicating that we agree with their terms (which for some reason, they cannot provide in its entirety - a copy of our original agreement). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We lost our rep and the III vendor doesn't seem to be in any hurry to replace her, yet we are still paying the same price. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Sierra is generally very strong but there is a lot of new development and updates that have not happened. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We haven't seen improvements in submitting enhancement suggestions that were promised a while ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Vendor tries his best to satisfy the customer, but he needs to interact more with the principal vendor for all technical issues and solutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Product could be easier to use. The product manuals could definitely be easier to use! Wish Innovative would offer more training opportunities as well as more cost-effective ones. I think we would most likely have a more positive attitude to the product overall if we were able to more effectively understand and implement it. Plus, there seems to be on-going issues with Java each time there is an upgrade. Those who access systems files from the Admin side refuse to allow the browser they use for this to upgrade Java because that would kill access to the Admin Corner. On the positive side, support has been good overall after the bumpy start to the new Supportal. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The vendor is improving, but still has some work to do regarding support and product development. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The issue with our current system that we are using, Sierra, is that the trainer of the system lives in California and he is not able to come here and train us face to face. It's over the computer and when you email questions, it may take awhile to get a response. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Vendor was not so forthcoming in resolving some of the issues we've faced. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Likes: platfor architecture, APIs, Encore for discovery, development partnerships with other library vendors/suppliers. Dislikes: Acquisitions and Cataloguing functionality can be restrictive. Turn-offs: every piece of functionality is developed as a separate module that attracts its own cost so total cost of ownership is expensive. More focused on meeting needs of academic libraries than public libraries (at least that's how it appears in Australia). Support can be described as inconsistent or patchy - sometimes really good and sometimes not good at all. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a library system. The automation system is monitored by the county. Many of the questions do not apply to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Customer service continues to be inconsistent, sometimes responses within a day and others languishing for months. Even bigger issue however is account reps and sales reps. Repeated emails to our account rep for even the simplest of purchases like adding a new scope takes months of babysitting and repeated demands for an update. Listserv still continues to be the only place to get consistent answers from other libraries and crowd source answers where III lacks to communicate. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Still concerned about lack of forward product development for consortia with III. It seems like their emphasis now is "compete with Summon" rather than "fix what's broken". Alma does not offer strong support for multi-types with schools and publics, so we're kinda "stuck". (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Pronto vamos a migrar a Sierra 3.3, versión que soluciona algunas incidencias existentes, incorpora mejoras y nuevas API que podrían resultarnos de utilidad. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Upgrade to Sierra, and frustrating issues comes. There are many access issues on WAM, such like iG Library, Proquest, Springer, sslibrary. Statistics Cross Tab reports fail, etc. The customer support is kind and nice. However, this is not good enough. Perhaps iii needs more development staffs concentrating on fixing issues first. Please make we users feel the maintenance fee worth it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We recently moved from BiblioCommons to Encore for our discovery layer - we are currently modifying Encore to better meet our patron and staff needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are now part of a national consortium which is based in the [..]. We have a contract with Innovative for the next five years. A decision to migrate to another ILS will not be ours to make. We will be consulted. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I cannot comment on the change in customer service over the past year since I am new in this position. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
A couple of years ago we were very unhappy with III. However, they have improved, as promised, many aspects that were lacking in the ILS and Customer Service. We hope they continue to improve in all areas. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra is very complicated but lacks some basic reporting functions and the Web Management reports has a Java problem that requires us to not update Java on our web browser. There has been numerous requests for a fix to no avail. To get better reporting you have to pay for another module or learn SQL. Another basic function that is available on Polaris but not Sierra is the ability to adjust patron functions restricted by overdue fines. For example, a patron who has reached the limit of fines and is blocked cannot renew items currently checked out through the webPAC. They need a staff person to do that. E-commerce and on-line registration are other areas that are complicated and still don't work in a user-friendly way. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Support has gotten better over the past year. However, the new process for enhancements to the system seems to only focus on what the company wants to develop when there are parts that need enhancing but are being ignored. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently under contract to move to Alma/Primo next year, joining a large academic consortia. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The support from Innovative continues to be haphazard with some issues not being responded to for months at a time. In addition, it is difficult to get responses from sales for quotes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Our ILS - Sierra - is robust, but huge and cumbersome for all but the most experienced staff. It could be much more user-friendly for staff. The Encore web product seems to be largely disconnected from Sierra at the tech support end (the support temas don't seem to talk to each other?) and we have little or no control over Encore's look and feel. That said, we suspect we'd have to buy some additional modules (no budget for this) to do all the things we want - we're sure they exist, but they're "extra". e.g. e-commerce options, a better mobile presence, third-party integrations, etc. Which is frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have recently migrated to Sierra. The most problematic areas were - III project management approach which lacked detail, - SSO implementation. In general - lack of Australian support so responses and actions take 24 hours, - consulting which is promoted is either webinar or very expensive. - US-centric system and print focussed system. We have not implemented their ERM but reports are that its an add-on rather than embedded functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Just migrated from Millennium to Sierra. In the process of implementing Encore. No really happy with the support from Innovative during the implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Innovative Interfaces has become simply too expensive; our system is now overkill relative to our needs; their customer support and representative responsiveness have deteriorated greatly in the last 24 months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Because we are networked with the [...] Public Library system, we MUST use their antiquated Sierra software. This isn't designed with school checkouts in mind - we cannot use student or parent helpers for checkout due to privacy issues with the entire community. Sierra regularly goes offline and we do not have a checkout alternative that doesn't involve a pencil and Post-it notes. As long as we are networked with the public library, we cannot switch to another circulation system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
Please note that for this library, we get our systems through[...] Libraries and [...] , so we have little say in customer service or changes to new systems. If [...] decides to do so, then we would likely have to. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This library is a shared library with [...] and a regional campus of [...] . OSU Libraries controls our catalog and all the service and decisions. We are also part of [...] . If either of them decides to change, then we would change, too. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative seems to have lost focus during the past 5 years. There is fairly new management and we hope they can get back on course. Enhancements have been slow and we feel they are getting behind the rest of the academic ILS vendors in their offerings, solutions, and technologies. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We couldn't expect for next years in terms of vendor policies. They always ask for additional payment when we would like add anything. This year they are bringing together all the modules and forcing us to buy all of them even we need only just one of the them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
[...] is a centralized technology organization for a consortium of more than 40 library systems. Individual libraries throughout the county may have different impressions of the ILS system. The number of items reflects the total number of items in the countywide system. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are a [...] library and will use whatever they provide for us. We are pleased with the support they provide. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are a disappointed that products to handle media is not developed for rfid. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
While Innovative's technical support is quite good, the shoddiness of the account representatives is reflected in our lower customer service response. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our consortium works directly with Innovative. Individual libraries submit support requests to the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are in a shared system with [...] University which means we are really tied to what they decide to do in terms of products, possible migration, discovery system, etc. We get very good service from [...] for a very reasonable price to be in the 'shared system. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The experience as an Innovative customer is getting strange. We can't seem to keep a sales person or customer relations person, for two years now we've not had a permanent contact for issues or quotes. The help desk remains hit or miss, varying from fast and accurate to just ignoring tickets, depending on the subject of the ticket. Outage response is generally good, and the core software has fewer defects with each release. The company holds webinars etc. to inform customers which seem more targeted at shareholders, and they seem to be more obsessed with finances than anything else. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
I did not answer the questions about completeness of functionality and e-resources because our system has capacities in a number of areas that we have not yet implemented due to staff turnover / training constraints. Our consortial agreement with [...] requires us to use their helpdesk exclusively. They are very responsive so we are happy with their service. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Though support was once the biggest complaint, Innovative sales now bears that torch. In four years we have been through 5 sales reps, each successively more overburdened by their management than the last. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Our main complaint is with Customer Service. Its difficult to contact the Help Desk directly. Reponses are incomplete. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Contract negotiations within state requirements should not be, but apparently are, subject to discussion with vendor legal advisors, which slows process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The answers were given from the point of view of the whole consortium (a group of 18 libraries), not just one member library. Planning to migrate or not strongly depends on the vendor's next version of the ILS. The ideas there are going to the direction we are interested in, but we need to see the realisation. NB! 'Approximate number of items in the library's collection' is the total number of item records from our shared catalog (holdings from 18 libraries). But not all libraries have completed the migration of data to the electronic catalog. So the actual collection is approximately 25-30% bigger. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
SIERRA is expensive and the support for a remote country like [...] require local support. Not an easy system to change configuration even for simple functionality without the vendor suppor. Expensive to connect to other machines that require SIP2 connectivity (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are in the process of developing an RFP for an III will respond to the RFP. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
It is very difficult to get the parent American company to make changes to the ILS to suit [...] needs or even encompass procedures that were part and parcel of our old Horizon system. Open source ILS is not an option since we have all moved to a national integrated library system and all changes would have to reflect this. Maybe in the future that will be decided for us but I have no knowledge that this is likely (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative Customer Service is terrible. They never fix anything quickly and they try to avoid talking to me. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are encouraged by new leadership at III, and their plans for microservices. In addition, they have improved their responsiveness to our institution's unique issues and challenges. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are planning to move to Sierra hosted this year. Previously we were a turnkey implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are waiting for some functionality: - fully web-based clients for simultaneous use by all library staff - integrated e-resources management. The e-resources module currently functions more as a filing cabinet for recording information. - SMS with non-U.S. text/data providers We're very happy with the ability to manipulate our data within Sierra, including reports and global changes to records (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been with our vendor for almost 20 years. With the annual increases in pricing even our rep said it was like we were being punished for being a long time customer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
The staff time and upfront cost of data migration remains a critical factor in our decision to remain with our current ILS vendor, for now. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Not satisfied with quality and timeliness of service. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Biggest complaint with III is that they roll out half-baked "features" and never make improvements. Just introduce new products (also not the greatest) and expect you to pay for those, vs. fixing what they rolled out (WebPAC, AirPAC, etc.). Also, the sales division still seems to be a mess. Their tech support, however, is wonderful. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative continues to struggle with support, though quality of software updates has improved in the past few years. (Library type: Law; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall Sierra delivers on some premises but was misleading in its open source availability. To gain the ability to modify any records, clients will need to purchase costly agreement for different APIs. The company has stopped development on products that were included in the original contracts (e.g. Encore Synergy, Express Lane, Telephone Notification System/Telephone Renewal System, Circa). They push clients to purchase third party products at prohibitive cost to the point that we opt to keep the “legacy” products for as long as they run. A turnkey contract will be voided if the client follows the recommended practice and decides to replace the server, the turnkey contract will be converted into software only contract once the hardware is replaced. While the company offers bundled pricing, its tier level (small, medium, large, very large) is based on size of circulation. Our library is considered very large because we have 4 million plus circulation to 144,000 people. As a result, the pricing level for our site is significantly higher than libraries of comparable size. To minimize annual cost increase, libraries like us are eliminating non-critical products and maintaining just the products that are core to our function. On a positive note, Innovative’s quarterly release of updates have worked well. In general, the system remains robust after an upgrade. This encourages client to move forward with the latest upgrade. The long-awaited Sierra Web client works well. Its quota of 5 licenses per site will hopefully be expanded in 2018. The fact that sierra no longer requires client to use their specific version of JAVA is a welcome relief. Staff welcome the ability to run Web Management Report without using JAVA. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The maintenance cost is a concern. The return on the investment on the existing ILS is not great. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
While we have seen a slight improvement in customer service in 2017, getting support tickets resolved is one of our main problems with this system. Cost is another. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are in the process of evaluating the big academic library ILS players in order to prepare for a move in the next few years - but, we're finding that generally they all offer the same things. We're having a difficult time determining what might make one system work better or worse for us than another - and we're not pleased that our choices are so few! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Encore is highly unsatisfactory because it does only the keyword searching. However, the vendor is working to improve the Encore. And we're migrating the electronic resources management (ERM) system toa new system know as Innovative Knowledge Base (IKB) system, thus the management of the electronic resources is not so effective for now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of a consortium and have not migrated to a web-based platform, so evaluation is not possible based on the most recent III technology. All tech support is done through a consortium, so there is no way to tell if inadequacies are due to III or the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very satisfied with our system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
On December 2017 we migrated from Millennium to Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our move to a hosted system as we migrated to Sierra from Millenium was a smart choice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We just completed our ILS review and have decided to retain Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are a small specialist research institute so would not be able to afford the big systems used by university libraries so this limits the potential library systems available to us and means we have to join various small systems together to get equivalent functionality over time. Soutron has been unexpectedly good for this due to its powerful XML API which was not a core requirement of our original spec. We are also much more dependent on our ILS vendor for support and development than bigger libraries due to our size. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
the larger the vendor the less flexible they seem to be in responding to design options (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Civica's renewed commitment to development of core product and customer support is refreshing. They were fully supportive of a due diligence exercise, which resulted in us re-signing with them. Civica's product roadmap is ambitious, and it is exciting to see where they are planning to take the product. They are adding more and more integration to popular eResources (Zinio, Overdrive). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Generally happy with the product and the supplier. Sometimes developments are delayed but no more than with any other vendor (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The product improves each year, however, the speed of the web based clients are an issue that need to be looked at. The vendors do seem to genuinely wish to improve the product in the direction the libraries believe it should be headed. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Civica merged Education and Library service together and we ended up with a sales rep with no experience in libraries who had no idea what he was talking about. Quality of response to service requests is very poor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Generally they are quite good. There has been a lot of libraries changing to new ILS and this may effect response times. We felt they promised more than what they could delivery for how our consortia works or didn't understand how we worked. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Has been commented at user group meetings that with the influx of Western Australian Spydus customers that response times to help desk queries has increased. Overall happy with the functionality of the system, though the features Civica are working on (redesigned Bootstrap catalogue, integration of LMS with events, rostering functions) will make it far more attractive to customers in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We just migrated to the SirsiDynix Symphony LSP from an OpenSource system. If we wanted to continue with an OpenSource solution, we needed to be prepared to enter into a deep conversation on how the ILS software should to be shaped to support our future. This is an honorable conversation. As a consortium, we felt that the ongoing conversation about software was a distraction. The five year long conversation we had been having about OpenSource software had not, in the end, helped to bring the libraries in our consortium to the center of our communities. As public librarians, we decided should be striving for conversations that helped us to engage intentionally and meaningfully with our communities. We decided to focus our attention and conversations on activities that shaped our libraries as platforms for educational, economic, and civic opportunities. In short, we found a vendor who was doing an extraordinary job on focusing on a vision for their software that was compatible with our mission. This will allow us to focus on the future of library service in our communities. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently satisfied with our current system but have a draft tender ready to go pending release of funds to cover costs to satisfy procurement requirements of the University. This tender would unifiy a number of systems potentially. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have used Sirsi since 1989. We have continued because they have expanded to meet changing demands of service and customer requests (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sirsi has really dropped the ball on many fronts. Their analytics package was a dud. Technical issues forced us to move to a front end using EDS instead of Enterprise. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
The current catalogue doesn't provide the facets and other search features users expect now. Development is focused on SirsiDynix's (for purchase) Enterprise discovery layer rather than the delivered BLUECloud PAC. This leaves customers with a choice to purchase more software to act as a catalogue or remain with an out of date catalogue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
"Number of items" includes electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sirsi Symphony is stable and well understood by our employees. [...] is evaluating ILS / LSP for implementation as our Sirsi contract expires June 2019. Alma and Sirsi's hosted Symphony / BLUEcloud products are being considered. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As a technical services librarian I find frustration with the authority structure of the database that is offered through Symphony. I think that some of these database services should be offered as a basic opening day package and not as add on services requiring extra monies for enhancement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix webcat has not been updated significantly since 1998. We will be migrating as soon as our consortium picks another vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Due to lack of funding, the ILS version has been stuck for the last 4 years, This situation will improve over the next year as we finally receive the funding support to upgrade to an SaaS platform that will run up to date versions of the software. This will include, though they are hardly finished products, SD's Enterprise catalog, and BlueCloud services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We work with the [...] in a cooperative effort to share services, including our ILS, with many small sized and rural libraries. [...] researches and contracts for the ILS and also provides support to member libraries. Without [...] , it would be very difficult for a library of our size to maintain and correctly utilize the services available through our ILS system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix often releases new products about 2 years prior before it's ready for production. I have seen this even within the past 5 years with their products such as Mobilecirc, Social Library (which they gave up on), and BookMyne. It takes them years to sometimes fix some issues, for example, making the online catalog mobile friendly, having people's checkout history sortable by author, instead of fixing the bug immediately they took away the functionality until a future release. So that now patrons can only sort by title. Overall, SirsiDynix is moving in the right direction, however they are very slow in their development of products that dont have a lot of bugs..... (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am very pleased with the aggressive way SirsiDynix has moved forward with new and exciting products to make our ILS so much more valuable to both staff and the customer with mobile apps, using tablets to check out even with RFID, really cool and easy inventory capability with tablets, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't use all the bells and whistles that SirsiDynix has. Originally, we went with this company because they could create a union catalog that would support almost 100 schools. In the 1990's they were one of the few who could handle this. So as a school district we got in at the ground floor. If I had to purchase today I'm not sure we could afford sirsi. We purchase the sure sailing which gives us consulting time to help with customization of our system. We don't have programmers that work for our library system, so all customizing and support come from Sirsi. They know our budget constraints and try to work with us on costs. We have a team assigned to us from sirsi and I like that I have the same folks to work with. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Symphony is still a relatively new product and lacks the integration and navigational capacities of our legacy ILS. SirsiDynix is currently migrating most of its products to a web platform which is promising, but development takes time to catch up with all the features that we need to operate. That being said, I am hopeful that the system will improve in the future. We are not pleased with some of the workarounds we've had to implement in order to make the system work to our expectations. We've had to purchase some drop-in products to accommodate our electronic resources and make them more readily accessible. I am not fond of Enterprise as a discovery product but I like the other ones even less. I think if we could afford to hire a staff or company to manage an open-source system, we would go that route. The sales and support staff have been excellent though. We chose SD because it represented a significant savings in ILS licensing fees but I think we actually got what we paid for. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Make it so MP3 audiobooks can be found as fiction or non-fiction. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
All [...] are in the process of moving to Alma. Future plans are for a shared universal catalog, and possible integration with the [...] of Georgia's universal catalog and universal borrowing system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Very responsive and friendly company. New product development is a bit slow though (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a consortium so we have no direct contact with the vendor and know nothing about the service they provide. We are only one vote among many when it comes to decisions about the automation system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We get our ILS through our consortium, [...] , and [...] provides all technical support and other support for the system. [...] is excellent at what they do 10/10 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am very appreciative of our consortium. If it were not for our consortium, we would not have an ILS, and would also struggle with an Open Source ILS due to our IT infrastructure and lack of staff to support it. This year's survey reflects upon the loss of crucial statewide funding that was previously used for our ILS, additional staff at the consortium level to support all the libraries on this same ILS, and also included the Discovery component. Now we're faced with the having the ILS with reduced capabilities, not enough staff to support the demand, and the removal of the discovery component. The vendor we used has been very generously supportive of us by working with us and our statewide financial situation. One last thing...we have migrated from Symphony to Enterprise and are now on SaaS. I am not pleased with the inability to see the changes we make on our cataloging end (for example, when updating the links in the 856 field, we have to wait several hours or 24 hours to see the changes take effect.) It was much easier for us to do our work when we could see the changes take effect immediately when our ILS was on an in-house server. This delayed piece is the biggest drawback of the product in my humble opinion, based on our hospital library's workflow. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix seem to be very slow at releasing their new products - particularly for consortiums. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I have experienced some high pressure sales tactics over the past few years. Purchase deadlines and threats of price increases are some of the specific measures used. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're happy with the products, services and support of our current vendor. However, we're significantly concerned about the steady increase in the price we pay for these. We are starting to consider other vendors for budgetary reasons. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
our ILS doesn't meet our needs as well as it once did, but not because it's a bad system. As a corporate special library, we have evolved into a "Knowledge Center" with mainly electronic resources and no longer need many of the features available. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This library is with a consortium. We are able to have a ILS because of the discounts we get by being a member. I have never used another ILS system so I cant give a educated answer to these questions due to having never used anything else. I might should have left the answers blank. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Do you plan to collect stats on AV items, print subscriptions, Licensed databases, ejournals, ebooks, and streamed products? I just gave the count for 'books and other print material catalogued as books'. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Number of items in the library's collection includes physical, electronic and DDA e-titles matched against subject profiles and included in catalogue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have selected a new vendor and will switch in 2018 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
The [...] libraries will be migrating Summer 2018 to Ex Libris, Alma/Primo. The [...] libraries migrated in 2017. Our ultimate goal is to have a seamless library system-both through automation and procedures to provide shared services and resources throughout the state for our students. Currently the [...] libraries have four different ILS. Already the initial process to prepare to migrate to one system is increasing communication and cooperation among our college libraries. We are not super impressed with Ex Libris customer service yet, but hopefully all will go smoothly. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Sirsi Symphony is a solid ILS, and we appreciate the flexibility that the Sirsi API give us to create our own applications. We would like to see more support for electronic resources, and we are hopeful that BlueCloud Acquisitions will provide this functionality when it is released. Another area that requires more support is short term loans, including management of patron notifications. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
With dwindling commitment to book purchasing and ebook purchasing and a planned deselection initiative to reduce book holdings to about 125,000 items, it makes less sense to invest huge dollars into an ILS and more sense to invest in discovery systems that manage all resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The [...] services 75+ school libraries. This software serves our purposes and needs very well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our number of items has gone down dramatically, because we changed ebook providers and at this point, the old records have been taken out but the new records aren't in yet. We're extremely happy with our current ILS, but that is mostly due to the outstanding service from the system managers at the consortium level. We're much more wedded to them than to any given product, but the larger the consortium becomes, the harder it gets to change platforms. Middle responses were chosen for vendor support items, because we almost never work directly with the vendor for support. We're planning on implementing ECM and hope that the system works better for electronic resources at that point. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Currently reviewing Discovery products to see if we should change products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We only converted to this system in May of this year, so we are still in the process of learning everything it can do. Change is hard, but I believe this system is far better than the open source system we converted from. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The support provided has been really strong. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The customer service from SirsiDynix is excellent, very responsive and personable. The reports are clunky in Symphony and you must pay to develop anything other than standard; in other systems you can more freely create a new report. It is pricey and the main reason that my satisfaction rating is never at the highest level. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
None (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
SirsiDynix seems to be growing rapidly and at times seems to be suffering minor growing pains. We have had a couple of interactions in recent months in which the support rep seemed new to the job or new to the product in question. Overall, they are bending over backward to make customers happy, as much as is feasible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The acquisition of our current ils was a consortium wide decision over which we had almost no control as a stand alone library. For the most part we are satisfied with this product, but it could be a lot better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Vendor seems stuck in delays in releasing new HTML5 staff client modules (circ, acquisitions) with necessary features. Current Java-based client is very antiquated. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
An open source solution is not possible for this library as there is no in house/on site IT person available to maintain it. We rely heavily on the Cit's IT and the vendor support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are transitioning from SIRSI to WMS at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
I have put a low score re how likely it is we would implement an open source ILS. As we are not considering a change its unlikely at the moment. If we were I'm sure we would be open to considering an open source ILS if it had all the functionality we needed. (Library type: Medical; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
My library will use whichever ILS the cooperative chooses. It is simply too expensive for my small library to do anything different from the coop. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Overall I think SirsiDynix's customer service is prompt, responsive, and usually helpful. Sometimes when they've given answers - it wasn't really what I was looking for, but at least shot me in the right direction for what I needed. WorkFlows seems to be meant to have a maximum amount of customization. Yet, I feel like they customize things that no one needs customized, yet the defaults you'd like to be able to change are not possible. Figuring out changes of any sort is a long and time consuming process OFTEN. You can make changes in one spot, but they aren't permanent. In order for it to be permanent it needs to be done in this other spot - which is usually a pain to figure out where. I'm the type of person who likes to figure it out for myself, but SirsiDynix makes it really difficult to accomplish that even with their documentation. The product is not intuitive or user friendly when you come right down to it - and that is my biggest frustration with it overall. None of our library staff has a really good understanding of how the product works. They know how to do the little piece they've learned, and nothing else. I've been working to train them more on it, but if you don't use it every day you forget, and its pretty difficult to go back and re-figure it out again. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are a consortium service for 13 college library and as such some of the above answers represent a median or average response across all members (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are part of a Consortium which has just recently put out an EOI for our LMS to cover the next five years (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We use the SirsiDynix Enterprise discovery interface, which is great for our virtual reading rooms and search limiting (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Total number of items in the collection is c.20,000 of which c.3,300 are print books (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Your info is premature. We are NOT on Carl yet[...] provides our ILS. Currently, we remain on Sirsi Symphony. Switch over date is expected to be May 28, 2018, but it's unknown if that date is solid or not right now due to development issues with TLC. We're mostly happy with [...] , but Symphony (and the Enterprise product) suffer from serious lack of support from Sirsi, and in my professional opinion, I wouldn't recommend it to any library. Sirsi demonstrated a severe lack of ability to implement required improvements. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Level of satisfaction with the product is tempered by its limitations in configuration for consortia. We would be interested to see ILS developments centered around the user rather than the collection. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We obtain our ILS and ProQuest's Summon through our state consortia. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We've been a little disturbed that there is not a full-fledged upgrade to the OPAC (eLibrary) that will be offered free of charge. BlueCloud PAC is only partially able to replace eLibrary. We don't like the idea of having to pay for a modern replacement. We really like that the company has such a variety of customers from various types of libraries, which makes it easy to consider expanding consortia. Customer support continues to be very responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall, I'm very happy with SirsiDynix and think they are on the right track with their development. Their existing products are sound and robust. My only concern is that, as they expand their customer base and product line, they might find themselves spread too thin. It is discouraging to have been hearing about new BLUEcloud staff products (Circ, Cataloging etc) for over 3 years without a finished product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
While it is expensive, I can't imagine switching from SirsiDynix at this time or the near future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Not happy with BookMyne as it lacks the ease of use for users and sharing (reviews and lists) that we had with Bibliocommonst that was implemented by [...]. However, it's my understanding that BookMyne works better "behind the scenes" with our consortium / shared catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Patrons and Public Service Desk staff do NOT like our current ILS. The Cataloging component seems to work much better, and our Consrtia Tech staff also like this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I have recently joined [...] and have not previously used Symphony - the above scores mainly reflect my colleagues' experience with the product. We have recently moved to a fully cloud-based Symphony build, and are currently in discussions regarding how the hosting of various services on Symphony/e-Library can be further improved (e.g. setting up an e-book platform). (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our consortium moved from Evergreen to Symphony because of concerns we had about the cost and support for Evergreen. From my point of view, our migration has been a huge mistake. Symphony looks like it was developed in the 1990s and still functions that way. Everything is batch processed. BlueCloud is somewhat helpful but there are huge disadvantages to it as well. We are still waiting for BlueCloud Circulation. The OPAC is not user friendly - the "fuzzy" searching logic delivers way too many hits and the hits are sorted in an unhelpful way. As for support, many times SirsiDynix answer is to "charge it to a card". We migrated in May 2017. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
SirsiDynix's adoption of internal Library Relations Managers resulted in a great improvement of customer service & reduction of response times, as they advocate for customers internally. Customer Support is very responsive & proactive. Development lead times are often disappointingly long & slow (the Enterprise discovery interface is still not mobile-ready responsively designed, although the first steps in that direction are due for release), but product quality is good when it's finally released. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Number of items is a complete estimate because I can not use my system easily to tell that number. Reports are set up to run automatically, and not on a as need basis. I can't edit my own reports. Books that are missing or lost don't shown in a catalog search, so you don't know that you still own them. While the system is supposed to be moving toward an online system, it still uses a computer based work station. It just is an outdated looking and non intuitive system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Could work better with consortia. They now offer regular (free) webinar tutorials which is much appreciated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Report running is my biggest complaint. There are too many gadgets and if you run the same report more than once you get a different result each time using the same parameters. The report template variety is minimal, and doesn't fully support the types of reports needed for most academic libraries. For example, there should be a way to run a collection analysis report. Also, the formatting of reports is awful! A report should be user-friendly and not require additional formatting by the report runner to clean out extraneous headings, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
[...] handles the purchase and maintenance of our ILS. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Support improved a few years ago and has remained the same. I wouldn't say it's any better than last year but it also isn't any worse. We have a brand new Director, so I'm not sure if there will be interest in migrating to a different ILS in the coming years. I believe it is highly unlikely right now given the current fiscal issues with the State and the millions of dollars in aid this municipality is no longer receiving (as is the case with every municipality in CT). Thanks for putting this together, it's always interesting to see the results. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
On the satisfaction question, the main reason for the lower score is due to the library staff having spent many years with the previous system and were hence attached and very accustomed to it. My personal satisfaction with Symphony would be much higher, but I am comparatively new to this service. On the customer support, their support is of very good quality to start with, hence there is only scope for incremental improvement. On working with the same company again, if based solely on functionality and current costs, then extremely likely. In reality, the pricing models offered by each supplier at the time of tender would have a major influence on the choice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Library is paying close attention to the efforts of the California Community College League's investigation of a Library Services Platform which will be offered to the consortia. Our reservations about our current system stem from the version of the system we can now afford. Sirsi has better products available but they are prohibitively expensive for our small institution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
we moved to Symphony as part of an amalgamation that didn't work out. We would like to return to our previous iteration (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
We are in a holding pattern with respect to our ILS. While SirsiDynix Symphony is not an ideal solution for an academic library in 2017, I have not seen that the new breed of "library services platforms" have achieved that status either. So we are waiting for something that truly "understands" current needs in academic discovery and access (especially, of course, in the area of e-resources), with an eye on FOLIO. In the meantime, we get by relatively well with a cobbled together patchwork of services: ILS from SirsiDynix, discovery service and makeshift catalog from EBSCO, and journals knowledge base/link resolver from ProQuest/Ex Libris (formerly Serials Solutions). With a bit of local expertise, it works fine... for now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Fairly smooth transition with much training and support provided. Will say that the vendor is not very proactive with product enhancements, most likely due to prioritising new Cloud based products. However, while these are being developed there are many aspects of the existing system which are very average, most notably the Outreach module. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
In my experience SirsiDynix is a flexible and responsive ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
It seems that Symphony and the BLUECloud suite are not being planned to integrate, in its core modules, the management of electronic resources. Instead, SirsiDynix decided to deploy a separate open source system and currently not searchable by the patrons. As a library who currently goes through staff cuts and constantly tries to find efficiencies in its daily operation, we do not see how this solution will help us become more efficient as it will require most likely to duplicate the records in both the ILS and eRM to make them searchable to the patrons. Other LSPs support the integration and management of e-resources within their core system supporting a more efficient workflow with easy discovery or A-Z access to library patrons. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Blue Cloud development seems to be window dressing on an old structure. Not being redesigned from ground up as a next gen LMS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Overall, I would say that the highlight being with SirsiDynix has definitely been its improved its customer relations, and its customer support. One thing that it has lagged behind in is its release of upgrades, which in some cases have been over a year in 'coming soon'. if this happens too often, when it come time to survey the market again, the current vendor may not be on par with what other vendors offer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We moved from a shared SirsiDynix system administered by the [...] this year because the [...] closed in June of this year. SirsiDynix provided excellent customer service during the contract changes and implementation of a SAAS system. They were very helpful when we had to move to a new system on a very short timeline. It was the shortest move I've been involved with and with very few migration problems. We are interested in open source ILS systems and are watching the market to see how it will develop over the next few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
This library is in a consortium that consists of libraries of varied sizes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Responses from the company are virtually non existant (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Hemos contratado Alma pero la migración no se realizará hasta enero de 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library service has been very satisfied with the transition from locally-hosted to vendor-hosted (SaaS). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] SirsiDynix Symphony still lacks two critical components as far as we are concerned. They need a better monetary reporting system and they need to be able to automatically adjust due dates when holidays fall within a loan period. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
It would be nice if SirsiDynix, especially in the public graphical interface, would provide something like amazon and other sources of info do, e.g., if one enters a title or author and doesn't get it quite right, the system says something like, "Did you mean...?" or "Perhaps you meant...." The public interface is not helpful like that. It's not quite as much an issue for staff using Workflows. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
This library is part of the [...] they make the decisions regarding any updates and/or changes to our system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been using the Open Source product - VuFind, as our web interface for a few years now. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Unlike previous products, it seems like Symphony is always undergoing upgrades or weird problems - it's exhausting to get multiple emails about this. Decisions about ILS are made at the library system level. Member libraries have little input. Staff find it hard to do searches in Symphony leading to frustration. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
In comparing Polaris, which was used at a previous library, with Workflows, which is used at my current, I find the latter to be a cumbersome product to work with. *Not a fan* (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Please note that my organization is an [...]. We are a consortium of public and private K-12 schools. So my responses are from a consortium level, not an individual library. Also, we do not get support from SirsiDynix, even though we have a support contract with them. All of our support is at the [...] level and from state suppor[...] . [...] is fantastic at supporting the ILS and everything else they provide. SirsiDynix is more of a disappointment - not support-wise, but as far as their product's feature-set and SirsiDynix's ability to keep up with the competition. Their weak spots are in reporting, handling of serials, loading of records, and a complete lack of a view/print module for the reports. Their system relies on a separate application - such as Microsoft Word - to view/print reports. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our 24-Library consortium is migrating to Polaris in the April 2018. SIRSI lack of response to our current issues is to be understandable given they did not win the renewal contract. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Recently integrated RFID technology with our Symphony system which hasn't been as seamless as we were led to believe. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Upgrading to Enterprise by SIRSI in Feb 2018 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We just signed a contract extension to stay with SD and implement its new Visibility product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Not particularly pleased with Sirse/Dynix flexibility or analytics. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
The SIRSIDynix WorkFlows ILS is antiquated and overly complex to use. This year the vast majority of the school library staff that I support are classified staff without certification. Many are unfamiliar with software in general and struggle greatly with WorkFlows. These Aides working for minimum wage and are not allowed to leave their districts or take time for professional time for training. Additionally, the fact that .exe files have to be installed (and updated) on each machine/PC and that there is still not a printing module (in 2017) is beyond believable. I understand SIRSIDynix is working on the BlueCloud Mobile Circ environments, but the upgrades and enhancements that my Library staff ask for have not been delivered and may not be functional until next year. [...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are a co-op. Some stakeholders find Symphony fine, others are quite displeased. From and IT standpoint the ones most dissatisfied are the ones who don't avail themselves of training and familiarization opportunities (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Excellent support for [...]. Difficultly lies in communication between Library and Computer language. (Check out vs Discharge for example) (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Reports are very important. We use stats for most everything including funding. Our current reporting is not reliable or user friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
Borrowers miss having access to their borrowing history (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are scheduled to migrate from SIRSI to KOHA in Spring 2018. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Symphony is not designed for small libraries and relies very heavily on inhouse systems administration. This is very expensive for small libraries. Although the SirsiDynix support team is available and friendly, it is no compensation for the complexity of the system. Apart from this, Symphony is a demanding and cumbersome system designed for gatekeeping rather than providing access. As the reliance on digital resources and research practices keeps developing, Symphony is left in the dust by other library systems. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
In 2016 we decided we wanted an intergrated catalogue on our website showing both the archive and books collections to our members. The [...] had invested in a Sirsi Dynix book catalogue only a couple of years previously. sirsi's archive system was not a full asset management tool so we invested in archive index place to run along side Sirsi. these both go through one portal making a searchable of both catalogues. We are very pleased with this because it allows us to also spread risk (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
database structure is outdated and interface is very clunky (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We're very interested in FOLIO development, but are waiting to see some early implementations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are looking at replacing both our ILS and discovery from EBSCO. Our Symphony ILS has given us no problems or issues, customer service has been good, but with modern ILS and discovery integration, we're expecting to migrate in the next 1-2 years to something that does both. EBSCO Discovery is expensive, they refuse to negotiate, and its not that great of a product for what you have to pay. As our database holdings move away from EBSCO due to pricing, our discovery becomes less and less useful as EBSCO does not play nice with other vendors from Gale or ProQuest. We will be looking for something that does. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Questions that were not applicable to my sue were answered with a "5" Customer support handled through the consortium (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
SirsiDynix in our experience has excellent customer support. SirsiDynix customer support was given a "5" in the 6th question, which asks if it was better or worse, because it has not changed from previous years. Symphony is a good product, with a wide range of functionality, but the staff interface is clunky to use and a replacement has been a long time in coming. SirsiDynix tends to be expensive and this is the basic reason we lowered their score for our willingness to deal with them for a future migration. We are not using an Open Source ILS. That being said, our impression of Open Source ILS, including Koha, is that it requires more in-house technical support than a proprietary system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] We do not manage the ILS system or the account with the vendor. We direct all of our customer support to the [..] not to the vendor. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Absolutely no contact with Sirsi Dynix in my 4.5 years at [...] . Quite surprising! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
First of all, we work through [...] and all Director's for each of the libraries vote to approve what happens with the ILS system. There are many Directors that don't know anything other than SirsiDynex and are not willing to look at new products. Since we are a small number of libraries that form this network, cost is a major consideration. So far our leader, [...] has provided outstanding support and advice and works hard to find workable solutions to issues that arise. Without [...] work and SD's assistance, I want to jump to another product. I personally liked Sierra better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
SirsiDynix are always slow to develop new products/functionality and then want to charge additional fees once the developments are available, despite things like e-resource management and web clients being basic client expectations of a modern ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently working on a migration from SirsiDynix Symphony to Innovative's Polaris ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We moved two years ago to a hosted solution with SirsiDynix, primarily because it would save our District money on hardware and personnel. This has been very helpful in keeping the ILS updated regularly. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with the implementation, training and customer support provided by the vendor. They respond promptly to problems and questions, and are very patient dealing with our questions. They know their products and are able to help and provide advice. Help is available 24 7. The products we use, Symphony and Enterprise in our opinion are inferior products compared to our previous system, Liberty. They are clunky, clumsy, awkard, nonintuitive, and downright frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have been with Sirsi/Dynix since 1994. At the time, it was a very small company and we are a very small library. Although the ILS has tons of bells and whistles, over time, the cost and the ability to maintain the system to take advantage of all the resources available using our current staff became unmanageable. You definitely need an IT person on staff or knowledgeable staff dedicated to maintaining the system. There is an added cost to every small thing that is associated with this ILS. The customer support is good, the company has just outgrown us in every way. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We like the concept of open source, but, we need an open source solution that is demonstrably proven through successful implementations in large academic libraries similar to ours. We will not be a test site for an open source implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are going to trial EDS and Summon this spring. Funding is an issue and we may not purchase until fall 2019 (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Improvements are desired in the ability to more easily comply with CASL legislation. For example, to more easily allow patrons to opt in or out for different types of notices (holds, overdues, newsletters, special announcement, etc.) and to prevent multiple notices being sent when family members use the same email address. Also the ability to send email notices from within the ILS that are more professional looking without having to maintain a separate email list with a third party service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I understand that the Follett system is much easier to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I did not know the answer to some of these questions. Perhaps there should be an "I'm not sure or don't know" option. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The number of items in the collection given is the number of items listed as held (i.e. not discarded) in the ILS and does not include the historic items that have not been added to the ILS. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The libraries have been with SirsiDynix since 1999. As the company has grown, the software has continued to improve. SirsiDynix does take customer suggestions into consideration for future updates. The only negative comment is the annual cost continues to increase. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
BLUEcloud products have been very disappointing. Still lacking too much functionality to be effective or efficient for library staff. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Siendo Summon una herramienta altamente tecnológica y robusta, se decidió el cambio a EDS, debido a que hay problemas de resultados No encontrados en la recuperación en las BD EBSCO que son nuestra mayoría de bases, Ahora estamos evaluando el comportamiento de EDS con bases de datos que No son EBSCO. Entre Summon y EDS presenciamos un claro problema que repercute a nuestras bibliotecas y se trata de la transparencia de los metadatos y competencia entre industrias que poseen herramientas de descubrimiento y a la vez son proveedores de contenidos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated in the Summer of 2017 and have been very happy with the support and implementation of our new ILS form SirsiDynix. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am not sure if I answered correctly as the [...] implements this in our Library system (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Trying to get our current ebooks subscription into the catalog has become a long ordeal. The thought is dangling out there that the vendor will come up with a way to streamline this, but implementation is on an unknown schedule. Hard to answer too many questions too specifically about the vendor, as we turn to consortial support who then work with the vendor if needed. Things seem like they're going well from our end. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
-- (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Serials module could use some work. I like what they're doing with the Iguana interface. They're aware of web accessibility issues and have done a lot of work in the area in recent years. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Highly satisfied with Auto-Graphics. They proactively update, respond quickly to concerns, monitor listservs, and rarely have service interruptions. We have no plans to migrate, although I always monitor trends and new products and may some day migrate to an open source product, although with the current cycle of data breaches, that option is less attractive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I was not a fan of Auto-graphics initially. Though they were stable, their product was merely okay and their support I found lacking. Over the last decade, I've found that they increasingly have improved. They have become more responsive and communicative. Their tech support has improved tremendously. I have gone from seeking out alternatives to being willing to recommend them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The only thing I wish VERSO would do (without additional cost!) is to allow Unique Management to access our records to deal with long overdues. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Verso can be quite awkward sometimes. However, ILS or any other tech decisions are never made at the Library Campus Level. Only via our [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Autographics offers a good solution for a smaller library with no tech staff (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] uses the same system as we do (Auto-graphics). This is useful for copy cataloging and the Inter-library Loan program we use across Kansas. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are still pretty new to the system. More time will give us a clearer impression of both the software and the company. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Customer service is friendly but frequent "upgrades" and updates create new problems where there was functionality, while places with missing or faulty functionality do not get addressed. The problem of not thoroughly testing changes before release persists. If we had the money to make a change, we would have done so years ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
In the year and a half that we've had AG-VERSO we've come to describe it with the phrase "This is an ILS that wasn't developed by librarians." It is anti-intuitive, ignores standards of the profession (start searches with an "a" or "an" and get better results? Really?), and is generally not user-friendly. While the Vendor's staff are friendly and attempt to help solve problems, they're usually only effective at best. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
It seems like the best change would be to convert to Sirsi-Workflows along with the other municipal libraries and to use the same ILS system to work alongside them instead of separate. There are a lot of kinks still with Verso, and it is not people-friendly and as reliable as I feel it needs to be for such a smaller library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Auto-Graphics requires too many steps to change the simplest of tasks. Also, libraries should have the freedom to do minor things such as deleting locations without having to ask the ILS company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I would like to be able to create in VERSO reports that distinguish between items that are tagged as local, donation, state, federal, etc. This would make my reporting much faster, easier, and more accurate. I would also like to be able to print quarterly reports based on the months I choose to be in a quarterly year. This also would improve my time management and accuracy of reports when using VERSO. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Since we've migrated over to the AGent VERSO system we have had no problems with the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The ILS, Verso, is not up to the ability to handle a medium sized library with multiple branches. We have a floating collection which the software has never been able to correctly implement. We have numerous items that are miss located or with locations that have nothing to do with where the item currently is. The cataloging portion of the software is extremely poor. We have no access to any of our authority files so nothing can be edited or corrected. Cataloging items requires the user to be more knowledgeable of MARC records and what fields go where, etc. There are a multitude of issues that there is more that could be said of its flaws. These issues have been brought to the vendor's attention, but they are beyond their capability to correct in a short time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Does not include 16,000 ebook records that have been removed from our ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
For the size of this Library there are too many reports and/or filters. It is sometimes confusing by the title of the report to know what information is being requested. It would be nice if there could be one button on the dashboard that included reports that answer the question required for our yearly Data Collection. It could be titled Quick Menu for Data Collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are very happy with our Auto-Graphics Verso. Thank you for all you do. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very happy with Verso. However the State of [...] discontinuation of the [...] statewide catalog has us thinking of joining a consortium in the future so that we have access to other libraries collections. A group of [...] Verso libraries reached out to Auto-Graphics about forming a consortium of [...] Verso libraries as they have done in other states, but they have not followed up on the idea. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The print function is cumbersome. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
This system was in place when I took the job here. Not considering changing, because I know how difficult that is, plus The general features are good. If I could recommend a change is the manner in which the system allows for freedom to search the system when the patron enters a incorrect search, the system should allow for some answers, preferable to get close hits. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
While functional at a bare bones level, it can lack the customization that we sometimes want such as having a patron's fine balance print on the bottom of their receipt automatically. It seems basic, yet doesn't seem to be an option. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have been very please with Verso for our consortium and the training and support that our libraries receive. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am the new director of the [...] Public Library. I am new to the library world and lingo. Some of the terminology is new to me and I do not know what it is. I answered the questions to the best of my ability. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We do not have an ILS service through our catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have considered migrating to another automation system, but it would not be much of a cost savings, and it would put a burden on staff who are resistant to change and not as tech-savvy as other staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The help desk is quick in response to any issues we have had. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have really appreciated Auto-Graphics customer service and how they work to meet our needs. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Great customer service! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
As we are in the process of changing systems we haven't had very much to do with III lately. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We would certainly look at other Innovative offerings if we needed to migrate, but it would be unlikely that we would be able to afford or justify the cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
It seems Innovative, Inc. is not and will not allocate resources to further develop Virtua. From our experience, it look like they will support the current version in the very short term (3 years), and they probably discontinue it. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The [...] is participating in the [...] and will migrate to a new ILS (and discovery interface) in 2020. The products will be chosen soon (beginning 2018), the choice will be published on[...]. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The VTLS company has taken over by the Innovative Interfaces, Inc. but in India the VTLS Indian customer service support is good. But in future we do not whether the Innovative Interfaces, Inc. comes with an another product by merging the VIRTUA with III LMS (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The change of Virtua vendor's management and technical support have impacted services to local customers. KOHA open source system will be further considered if it can retain and support other internal integrated system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] is part of the [...] consortium currently investigating a consortial purchase of a next-gen ILS. We are hoping to select and migrate in 2018. Voyager (Ex Libris) has been reliable and has worked well for us but is too print-focused. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We continue to investigate Alma and Primo, but we are already understaffed and the thought of undertaking a conversion of this magnitude is impossible without additional people which administration will not provide. It is becoming increasingly difficult to manage electronic resources in Voyager as well as to keep in step with University IT and Windows requirements. The University is also migrating to Workday and Voyager will not interface with that either. Very frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We had a terrible experience upgrading this past summer. We had a contract stating that we would be upgraded to 9.2.1 and was upgraded to version 10. The upgrade took longer than planned, and then needed to be rolled back to the version agreed upon. Our upgrade engineer refused to communicate via phone, and this experience was nothing like the 12+ years of Voyager upgrades I have dealt with. It also took months to have Voyager schedule our upgrade. I had to call and fuss at customer service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are hoping that FOLIO will develop sufficiently to become a viable open source alternative for academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
It appears that the willingness and/or ability of ExLibris to support its legacy products is waning as more libraries move to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The # above is only for print resources (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I wouldn't be surprised if, after we complete our evaluations, we go with Alma from Ex Libris. It seems to have almost everything we need. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are interested in migrating to a more modern ILS, but are waiting for the[...] to negotiate a system-wide purchase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We anticipate making a decision in the next 18 months about the next ILS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris's continued support for Voyager is appreciated, but there is a limit to how much functionality can be added, at this point, to a system built on an older platform. We are eager to move to a modern web-based system that will handle e-material better and integrate fully with our discovery tool. That said, we have seen an improvement in performance and cooperation between Summon and Voyager since the ProQuest acquisition last year. As soon as we receive funding, we will start the RFP process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are in the process of implementing Alma as a member of the [...] Scheduled to go-live on July 2018 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our ILS (Voyager) has been in use for over a decade, and users find it acceptable in terms of features and performance for managing circulation, cataloging, reporting, and other tasks as necessary. [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
My staff appreciates the company's issues alerts - for example, when the ILS goes out of service. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently about to begin our migration from Voyager to Alma during the first half of 2018. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are very impressed with Alma / Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Thank you! (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We're aware that Ex Libris views Alma as the product of the future, but it would represent a loss of functionality for us. Keeping an eye on developments with Folio and Evergreen as options when Voyager reaches end of life. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We use Ex Libris Voyager in a limited way, not having implemented Circulation, but it suits us and the company keep it updated so it is not worth changing (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Although Alma/Primo have been acquired, migration will not take place before next year (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We feel the new LMS platforms have matured enough for us to seriously consider adopting one to replace our ILS. We have recognized the limitations of our ILS for a long time, but the next-gen products did not have enough functionality to warrant dumping our ILS. It seemed the next-gen products were built with brand-new functionality, without the basis of the existing functionality we have relied on for decades. The new platforms are finally catching up and incorporate enough of both old and new functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] The comments above reflect an old Voyager system (it chugs along, reliable, support is good but there is really no development) with Summon discovery and Intota ERM/360 Link. Intota has been a disappointment as it was not developed from its initial form, and Summon is current but has some issues that we have discussed with Ex Libris, but some important ones have not been resolved, e.g. accurate date sort has been a sore point. We have talked with Ex Libris about it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Voyager works but it is an aging product with few new developments (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Finnish libraries founded a consortium to acquire a new library system including 46 libraries. Library of Parliament is among these libraries. On our behalf we would prioritize a commercial system for our library, since we do not have resources for maintenance and development work for an open source system. Open source system would be a possible option only provided that maintenance and development work would be covered by a third party. In principle we would warmly support the idea of open source system, but in practice we need to consider the realities of the resources and practices in our organization. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Answered this with Voyager in mind as our migration is not yet completed. Next year's survey will reflect our post migration! Thank you for your hard work and contributions to our profession. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We installed Primo in 2007. It is not hosted. We do not use most of Primo's features. We would use even fewer of Alma's features. We simply don't have the required staff to administer these products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
The [...] as signed a contract with Ex Libris. We plan to be in production (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Voyager is by far the most expensive single application that we license, yet most components of the system have been stagnant for a very long time. Clearly very little of what Voyager customers pay is reinvested in the product. One could speculate that this is a deliberate decision on the part of the vendor to extract maximum revenues for minimal effort while at the same time providing an impetus for their customers to migrate to the vendor's newer, even more expensive products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We presently have good relations with ExLibris. We would like to see how the field of Next Generation ILS's develop before making any move. Some of the delays with support occurring after the merger with Serials Solutions have been remedied. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are part of a large consortia (over 90 libraries) and any decision on new ILS system will be decided by the consortia. There are not too many viable systems remaining. We would look at open source but it would need to be a system that could work in a consortia setting. We do use the VuFind system for the discovery layer of our online catalog and we do like the functionality of this open source system. We do plan on keeping this our discovery layer of the online catalog even after vendor ILS system is selected through the RFP process. Maybe a combination of open source and venfor based backend system is best way forward. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
When we implemented Voyager in 2001 it was very suitable for our needs at that time and still performs those functions well. We are now at the stage where in 2018 we require the same and also more functionality (especially with regard to eresource management and data manipulation) and a more modern system so will be looking at the ILS market in the near future. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
90% of the library's print collection is stored in a remote storage facility; still processing items to be sent to this facility. Items already part of the facility's inventory are claimed as Resource In Common for this library, and remain part of this library's original inventory. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have now an old version of Vubis, in 2016 we acquired a new ILS that will 'go live' in the course of 2018 (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Issues with the Discovery Layer Knowledge Base come directly from lack of communication between OCLC, database vendors and publishers. We feel like a ping pong ball. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Number of items is print only - I don't have figures at hand for the E-resources. I would love to move to an open source ILS, but my administration simply won't support me. OCLC WMS is a great product, but over-sized for the needs of our library: it was imposed on us from a manager. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Over the last year there have been several problems with OCLC systems. It is likely that this is due to growing pains as the number of WMS subscribing libraries increases. Nevertheless, the complications that it has added throughout the year have been frustrating. This is the first year that our satisfaction level has dipped since switching to WMS and I am hopeful that the normal high level of operation will return soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
OCLC is in the process of upgrading the system's underlying infrastructure, and so we've had to deal with a number of brief outages and other issues that weren't present previously. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Software updates are frequent and not-disruptive unlike our previous system. Good method in place to vet enhancements, sort of "continuous improvement". The Report Designer is optional extra, but you need it to fully extract data for specialized reports. Operating this system is much easier than previous systems we had, and it is easy to learn for both students and librarians. The integration of online resources cannot be underestimated: one click, and it is there. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We've been happy with WMS from OCLC, but we go along with the [...] regarding ILS and if others in the [...] group are dissatisfied and would like to move to an open source ILS, we would also consider it. When we were looking to switch ILS platforms, we did look at open source but at the time, none of the ones we were considering seemed complete enough, nor did they integrate our consortium needs and wishes like WMS did. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Software updates are frequent and not disruptive, unlike our previous library systems. Good method of vetting improvements, sort of a continuous improvement process. The Report Designer is an optional extra, but is needed to fully extract data for specialized reports. The integration of online resources cannot be underestimated in value: one click, and it is done. Overall, the system is the easiest to operate than previous systems, and it is easy to train both librarians and students. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It's not so much the ILS system but the willingness of other vendors to work within the ILS to make sure the right connections are being made between the ILS and all of our electronic content. Linking to ebooks in our collection has been a major problem and the indexing provided by 3rd party vendors has been somewhat lacking. But things are improving albeit slowly. Students like our new interface and the ability to "discover" online resources such as articles alongside our physical resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Overall I'm satisfied with the vendor, though there are some issues that cannot be overlooked, such as occasional server inconsistency, resulting in problems with search retrieval. Also, there's a tendency to adhere to production roadmaps at the expense of completed functionality, resulting in features that don't work optimally. I sometimes question whether end-user needs (library users/students) are fully taken into consideration. Other than that, I see incremental progress in our system, and support is friendly and responsive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The only problem we have noticed is that there has been a noticeable increase in downtime of the system since we implemented it. It is the one disadvantage to using a cloud-based system. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
OCLC needs to spend more time with development and testing before releasing updates to software. Every update seems to create a new issue, which requires another update. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
OCLC is too complex for our needs and requires too much high-level IT support. The Library team is moving towards a system that we can manage ourselves. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
The public side of OCLC WMS works as expected and problems are addressed quickly by OCLC. Its the staff side that is clunky. If a library can afford the separate Report Designer, then the library can design reports to obtain information. We do not have the report designer, and we are back to manual counts of items as they come in to answer basic questions for annual surveys. What I can get now tells me overall numbers, but not broken down by when we acquired it or by how many items are included in a title. We have 229, 414 titles. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
WMS Record Manager and Acquisitions modules do not work well together, especially for serials management. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
OCLC is responsive to our needs and concerns. WMS is still under development and we need more improvements in order to rate it higher in many survey areas. Noticeable downtime and service disruptions have increased this past year. They are addressing the issues by adding server capacity, but degradations are still problematic. Overall the system has made great strides in improvement since our migration in 2013. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
WMS has improved greatly since we first implemented it four years ago, but it still lacks some basic functionality, such as the ability to globally update selected fields within an identified set of records. In addition, while WorldCat Discovery always brings back some search results, actually retrieving the correct record for a known item is surprisingly difficult and haphazard. This hampers collection development and maintenance. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Vendor very responsive by email and phone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our relationship with OCLC WMS has steadily improved since initial implementation. It now provides a very good discovery interface -- not yet excellent, but steadily improving. The products are generally fine and the service / support has gotten vastly better. For the cost, this is by far the most effective and economical system available to us. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are somewhat satisfied with OCLC WMS. It is still a system in development. For example, the Acquisition module doesn't integrate with our campus accounting system. So, we have to currently maintain two systems for accounting purposes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Coming along, but still needs a lot of development. Their Discovery Product is still not on par with the World Local interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very happy with OCLC's WMS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our migration from Voyager/PRIMO to OCLC WorldShare Management Service/Discovery has been both rewarding and challenging. The fact that we do not have to maintain servers (with software and hardware updates, patches, virus protection, etc), download and install client software is great. At the same time, we miss a lot of the functionality that was available to us in our former ILS. We had access to the code to make changes to the system if needed. Example - A New Books Listing or recently acquired titles were a feature in Voyager that we were able to add using Perl scripts. We are not able to do something similar in WMS at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
OCLC seems to have brought many libraries onto WMS in a short period of time without adequately preparing for the burden on its servers. As soon as we went live, WMS began having regular and persistent "System degradations." The vendor communicated about these degradations frequently and has assured users that it is in the process of upgrading server capacity and reliability. Things have improved in the past month but as new customers, we are concerned about a lack of stability for the cloud-based system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The system should be farther alone in progress. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Company in America so accessing support can be difficult due to time difference, it would be preferable if the company had a phone number to call rather than lodging a help desk request. Difficulty with data and reports. Need to be able to search by shelving location and it doesn't offer that function. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
One aspect of WMS that was initially appealing is that you can chose which modules to license, and thus costs can be controlled. One module is an advanced analytics module, while pre-made reports can be run with any subscription. We're finding, as the product advances, that more and more important functionality is being moved to the analytics module, and the pre-made reports are not necessarily keeping up. This is frustrating, as it feels like some key data is not available to us, though we don't need to the fully functionality of the analytics module. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The largest amount of trouble is many of the databases change or are restricted and the system is not changed to reflect it. Meaning we have a large portion of students who are finding broken links and resources. It is also important to note that many times tickets are opened due to errors and not resolved for months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
97,817 items per WMS collections report by shelving location; 490,292 total holdings per WMS collection evaluation, including digital collections selected in the KB. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just migrated this past Spring and so we're still tweaking settings etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Pleased with the OCLC system. Updates are being made to improve functionality in a timely manner. We are at the tail-end of migrating to the system and working on clean-up post implementation. Not everything is perfect but it is a good system. As long time owner/customers of OCLC, this was a logical procurement. Our previous system (Polaris) was bought out by another company (Innovative) and did not work well for our academic library needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
In our opinion, the ILS development team is disconnected from the needs of public library end users, and also from its own support department. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
As with many library systems there is great POTENTIAL to WMS. I wish OCLC could devote more resources to its development. The user community has plenty of ideas, and while OCLC does regularly enhance the various product modules, there seems to be a lack of folks at OCLC able to get the changes made. Perhaps OCLC is having difficulty hiring enough programmers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
It's been a rocky year with OCLC. Before I have a chance to understand the fundamentals of WMS, the fundamentals change, and I'm left in a vicious cycle. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are very satisfied with OCLC's WMS system, except for the discovery interface. Our consortium has been working with the WMS support team to improve discovery and the team has been quite responsive. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The company makes great attempts at customer service. They provide excellent collaboration with our consortium. However, sometimes their implementation is less than thorough; follow-through is not always on target. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I am still learning some of the things, so I have little more to say. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Functionally, the ILS is good, however they keep messing with our data on the backend which causes lots of extra work. Data reliability trumps functionality most of the time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Although we implemented OCLC’s WMS in July 2015 they neglected to install the analytics module until we demanded a refund. Customer service is great, everything else is trash. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I would like to see more reporting options included in our subscription and not just available via additional cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We opted not to purchase the report creation module, and I have found the canned reports to be very basic. But the additional cost was out of our price range. We have had very good response from Support both via email and phone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We're very happy with WMS. It's been a year and we are becoming more familiar and comfortable with the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We understand that the experience is a success because with the implementation of the system: WMS, we share collections and knowledge, minimizing costs, etc., being able to dedicate our efforts to innovate and generate value, to the institution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
|
|
|