Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for AGent VERSO


2018 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction26 1 2 1 6 9 7 87.588
ILS Functionality26 1 3 6 9 7 87.628
Print Functionality26 1 9 11 5 87.778
Electronic Functionality25 1 3 3 4 11 3 87.168
Company Satisfaction26 1 2 1 5 11 6 87.588
Support Satisfaction26 1 5 9 11 98.158
Support Improvement24 1 9 1 5 4 4 56.587
Company Loyalty25 1 2 2 2 3 6 9 97.208
Open Source Interest26 8 2 2 2 1 5 2 4 03.273

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS26 27.69%
Considering new Interface26 13.85%
System Installed on time?26 2492.31%

Average Collection size: 30932

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2017 results according to the type and size of the library.

AGent VERSOallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1327.17 147.43001057.105004
ILSFunctionality1327.04 147.14001057.045004
PrintFunctionality1277.24 147.43001007.195004
ElectronicFunctionality1276.46 146.29001016.555003
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1327.73 148.21001057.615004
CompanyLoyalty1267.13 147.5700997.035004



2017 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction132 1 2 4 4 5 21 23 45 27 87.178
ILS Functionality132 4 4 4 9 20 24 43 24 87.048
Print Functionality127 1 2 1 5 8 14 24 49 23 87.248
Electronic Functionality127 2 1 2 4 14 18 17 15 35 19 86.467
Company Satisfaction130 2 1 2 3 8 9 27 37 41 97.428
Support Satisfaction132 1 1 4 5 11 21 37 52 97.738
Support Improvement128 2 4 24 11 14 31 42 97.238
Company Loyalty126 3 1 2 7 7 17 21 33 35 97.138
Open Source Interest127 48 13 14 8 15 14 7 4 3 1 02.352

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS133 129.02%
Considering new Interface133 10.75%
System Installed on time?133 12090.23%

Average Collection size: 58743

TypeCount
Public111
Academic14
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00018
[2] 10,001-100,000100
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction89 3 2 3 8 10 27 25 11 76.887
ILS Functionality88 1 3 4 10 12 15 35 8 86.897
Print Functionality87 1 1 2 3 6 11 25 25 13 76.997
Electronic Functionality75 3 2 2 3 6 8 9 18 14 10 76.157
Company Satisfaction88 1 2 4 5 10 13 37 16 87.278
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 6 8 13 32 26 87.628
Support Improvement86 1 7 12 11 24 15 16 76.847
Company Loyalty88 4 2 4 8 9 17 28 16 86.818
Open Source Interest85 24 10 22 6 6 7 5 3 2 02.332

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS90 44.44%
Considering new Interface90 22.22%
System Installed on time?90 8392.22%

Average Collection size: 39853

TypeCount
Public77
Academic11
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,00069
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction131 2 2 6 15 15 37 36 18 76.937
ILS Functionality130 2 2 7 13 16 45 32 13 76.827
Print Functionality128 1 1 1 8 2 15 42 43 15 87.117
Electronic Functionality108 1 1 3 6 7 8 14 32 25 11 76.487
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 2 2 11 10 39 41 23 87.227
Support Satisfaction130 1 2 4 3 12 28 40 40 87.588
Support Improvement125 1 7 35 10 18 30 24 56.777
Company Loyalty127 6 3 8 15 20 25 28 22 86.567
Open Source Interest122 36 9 24 6 16 15 5 6 4 1 02.682

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS136 128.82%
Considering new Interface136 32.21%
System Installed on time?136 12591.91%

Average Collection size: 38377

TypeCount
Public119
Academic12
School0
Consortium2
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000106
[3] 100,001-250,0008
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction53 2 2 2 2 7 8 11 11 8 76.267
ILS Functionality54 1 4 2 1 5 6 9 19 7 86.637
Print Functionality55 1 1 2 6 4 6 18 12 5 76.477
Electronic Functionality47 3 1 3 1 7 9 4 10 5 4 75.385
Company Satisfaction54 2 3 2 3 9 18 10 7 76.567
Support Satisfaction55 1 2 1 1 1 3 4 10 21 11 87.048
Support Improvement53 3 2 1 2 11 1 8 18 7 86.457
Company Loyalty54 4 1 2 2 3 2 9 2 17 12 86.398
Open Source Interest52 14 6 12 1 9 5 3 1 1 02.482

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS58 813.79%
Considering new Interface58 46.90%
System Installed on time?58 5594.83%

Average Collection size: 47480

TypeCount
Public49
Academic7
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction68 5 2 2 6 4 18 19 12 86.627
ILS Functionality68 3 1 1 5 6 4 19 18 11 76.687
Print Functionality68 4 2 1 1 1 2 6 14 22 15 86.858
Electronic Functionality63 3 2 2 3 6 7 6 13 11 10 76.027
Company Satisfaction68 5 1 1 1 1 4 3 16 15 21 96.908
Support Satisfaction68 4 1 3 1 3 2 11 17 26 97.198
Support Improvement64 4 7 18 2 11 8 14 56.207
Company Loyalty67 5 3 2 2 4 4 5 12 12 18 96.287
Open Source Interest66 24 11 5 1 7 10 3 4 1 02.381

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS68 710.29%
Considering new Interface68 22.94%
System Installed on time?68 6697.06%

Average Collection size: 42911

TypeCount
Public57
Academic8
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction74 2 1 3 1 5 15 31 16 87.328
ILS Functionality76 2 3 3 2 1 4 18 29 14 87.058
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction76 1 1 1 1 1 4 15 24 28 97.688
Support Satisfaction76 1 1 3 1 4 11 18 37 97.808
Support Improvement75 1 1 2 9 14 3 7 16 22 96.768
Company Loyalty76 5 1 1 2 4 4 8 22 29 97.248
Open Source Interest70 22 8 14 4 7 7 5 3 02.312

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS79 67.59%
Considering new Interface79 33.80%
System Installed on time?79 7189.87%

Average Collection size: 64695

TypeCount
Public61
Academic14
School1
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction67 1 1 2 6 12 21 24 97.728
ILS Functionality67 2 3 7 16 22 17 87.498
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction67 1 1 7 5 23 30 98.048
Support Satisfaction67 1 1 1 2 1 19 42 98.349
Support Improvement66 1 1 9 8 5 13 29 97.538
Company Loyalty66 2 1 1 3 3 8 18 30 97.708
Open Source Interest66 18 12 7 4 9 8 4 3 1 02.592

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS67 34.48%
Considering new Interface67 00.00%
System Installed on time?67 6597.01%

Average Collection size: 40971

TypeCount
Public50
Academic13
School2
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 3 7 27 17 16 77.407
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction72 5 4 19 16 28 97.818
Support Satisfaction72 1 2 3 19 12 35 97.998
Support Improvement71 16 15 4 5 8 23 96.617
Company Loyalty72 3 5 2 5 24 33 97.968
Open Source Interest71 20 7 20 6 2 11 4 1 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS73 45.48%
Considering new Interface73 00.00%
System Installed on time?73 7197.26%

Average Collection size: 31725

TypeCount
Public59
Academic11
School1
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 1 5 16 27 21 87.838
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 2 5 19 42 98.319
Support Satisfaction70 1 1 1 8 15 44 98.349
Support Improvement64 2 7 2 10 10 33 97.759
Company Loyalty71 1 1 1 9 9 50 98.459
Open Source Interest71 29 9 12 1 5 8 2 3 1 1 02.061

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS72 11.39%
Considering new Interface72 11.39%
System Installed on time?72 6894.44%





2008 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction81 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 17 25 24 87.268
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction81 2 2 3 3 2 12 20 37 97.688
Support Satisfaction81 2 1 2 1 2 3 11 15 44 97.819
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty81 3 2 4 3 10 18 41 97.639
Open Source Interest81 30 6 6 8 8 11 5 4 1 2 02.632

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS83 44.82%
Considering new Interface83 00.00%
System Installed on time?83 8096.39%





2007 Survey Results
Product: AGent VERSO Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction18 1 2 2 5 5 3 76.897
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 5 8 7 87.338
Support Satisfaction24 1 1 1 1 4 8 8 87.468
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty24 3 2 1 3 8 7 86.588
Open Source Interest24 7 2 1 3 3 4 2 1 1 03.083

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS24 416.67%
Considering new Interface24 14.17%
System Installed on time?24 14.17%




2018 : gen: 7.58 company 7.58 loyalty 7.20 support 8.15

2017 : gen: 7.17 company 7.42 loyalty 7.13 support 7.73

2016 : gen: 6.88 company 7.27 loyalty 6.81 support 7.62

2015 : gen: 6.93 company 7.22 loyalty 6.56 support 7.58

2014 : gen: 6.26 company 6.56 loyalty 6.39 support 7.04

2013 : gen: 6.62 company 6.90 loyalty 6.28 support 7.19

2012 : gen: 7.32 company 7.68 loyalty 7.24 support 7.80

2011 : gen: 7.72 company 8.04 loyalty 7.70 support 8.34

2010 : gen: 7.40 company 7.81 loyalty 7.96 support 7.99

2009 : gen: 7.83 company 8.31 loyalty 8.45 support 8.34

2008 : gen: 7.26 company 7.68 loyalty 7.63 support 7.81

2007 : gen: 6.89 company 7.33 loyalty 6.58 support 7.46

Comments (survey2017)

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)

ILS