Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Carl.X


2018 Survey Results
Product: Carl.X Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction11 1 1 2 4 2 1 65.916
ILS Functionality11 1 2 2 2 4 86.187
Print Functionality11 1 1 2 4 3 76.277
Electronic Functionality10 1 1 2 3 2 1 65.606
Company Satisfaction11 1 1 2 3 2 2 66.186
Support Satisfaction11 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 25.275
Support Improvement10 1 1 1 4 2 1 54.605
Company Loyalty11 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 96.918
Open Source Interest11 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 02.911

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS11 19.09%
Considering new Interface11 19.09%
System Installed on time?11 763.64%

Average Collection size: 1277789

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[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.

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



2017 Survey Results
Product: Carl.X Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction11 2 1 4 3 1 76.737
ILS Functionality11 1 1 1 4 3 1 76.917
Print Functionality11 2 2 6 1 87.368
Electronic Functionality10 1 1 3 3 2 66.307
Company Satisfaction11 1 1 1 2 4 2 86.918
Support Satisfaction10 3 1 3 2 1 36.107
Support Improvement8 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 45.006
Company Loyalty10 2 1 1 3 3 86.608
Open Source Interest11 5 1 3 1 1 01.821

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS12 18.33%
Considering new Interface12 18.33%
System Installed on time?12 866.67%

Average Collection size: 1229446

TypeCount
Public11
Academic0
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0005
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Carl.X Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction9 1 5 1 2 77.227
ILS Functionality9 1 3 4 1 76.447
Print Functionality8 2 3 3 76.887
Electronic Functionality8 1 2 1 4 75.887
Company Satisfaction8 1 2 3 2 77.007
Support Satisfaction8 1 1 1 2 2 1 76.757
Support Improvement8 2 1 2 1 2 57.007
Company Loyalty8 1 1 2 4 97.639
Open Source Interest8 6 2 00.250

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 110.00%
Considering new Interface10 110.00%
System Installed on time?10 880.00%

Average Collection size: 1102392

TypeCount
Public9
Academic0
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0003
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0005
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Carl.X Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction9 1 2 2 1 3 85.565
ILS Functionality9 1 3 1 3 1 55.786
Print Functionality9 1 1 3 1 2 1 66.336
Electronic Functionality9 1 1 3 1 3 44.784
Company Satisfaction9 1 1 1 1 1 4 85.677
Support Satisfaction9 1 1 2 1 4 85.787
Support Improvement9 1 1 2 1 2 2 55.676
Company Loyalty9 2 2 2 1 2 04.895
Open Source Interest9 6 1 2 00.560

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 770.00%
Considering new Interface10 440.00%
System Installed on time?10 660.00%

Average Collection size: 1424795

TypeCount
Public6
Academic1
School0
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0002
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0004
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Carl.X Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction6 1 1 2 2 76.677
ILS Functionality6 2 1 2 1 56.337
Print Functionality6 2 2 1 1 46.507
Electronic Functionality6 1 2 2 1 56.007
Company Satisfaction6 2 2 1 1 56.837
Support Satisfaction5 1 4 87.208
Support Improvement5 2 1 1 1 56.807
Company Loyalty6 1 2 1 2 77.008
Open Source Interest6 3 1 2 03.175

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS6 350.00%
Considering new Interface6 00.00%
System Installed on time?6 583.33%

Average Collection size: 2391334

TypeCount
Public5
Academic0
School0
Consortium1
Special0

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



2013 Survey Results
Product: Carl.X Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 1 3 1 87.148
ILS Functionality7 1 1 2 2 1 77.147
Print Functionality6 1 4 1 87.678
Electronic Functionality7 2 2 2 1 46.436
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 1 3 1 87.008
Support Satisfaction7 2 1 1 1 2 57.007
Support Improvement7 2 2 1 1 1 45.865
Company Loyalty7 2 3 2 87.438
Open Source Interest7 2 1 3 1 21.712

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 228.57%
Considering new Interface7 00.00%
System Installed on time?7 685.71%

Average Collection size: 1775618

TypeCount
Public7
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Carl.X Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction8 3 1 2 2 46.007
ILS Functionality8 2 3 2 1 66.256
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction8 2 2 2 1 1 46.137
Support Satisfaction8 2 1 1 2 2 46.137
Support Improvement8 4 4 56.007
Company Loyalty8 1 2 1 2 1 1 35.507
Open Source Interest8 2 1 1 2 1 1 03.003

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 112.50%
Considering new Interface8 225.00%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 2662290

TypeCount
Public8
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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


5 Responses for Carl.X in 2011

2 Responses for Carl.X in 2010

1 Responses for Carl.X in 2009

3 Responses for Carl.X in 2008

2 Responses for Carl.X in 2007

2018 : gen: 5.91 company 6.18 loyalty 6.91 support 5.27

2017 : gen: 6.73 company 6.91 loyalty 6.60 support 6.10

2016 : gen: 7.22 company 7.00 loyalty 7.63 support 6.75

2015 : gen: 5.56 company 5.67 loyalty 4.89 support 5.78

2014 : gen: 6.67 company 6.83 loyalty 7.00 support 7.20

2013 : gen: 7.14 company 7.00 loyalty 7.43 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.00 company 6.13 loyalty 5.50 support 6.13

Comments (survey2017)

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)

ILS