| 2022 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 96 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 20 | 29 | 24 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 96 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 27 | 24 | 23 | 7 | 7.26 | 7 | ||
| Print Functionality | 95 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 16 | 32 | 30 | 8 | 7.62 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 94 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 22 | 17 | 14 | 7 | 5.84 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 93 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 11 | 16 | 29 | 20 | 8 | 6.99 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 94 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 14 | 30 | 28 | 8 | 7.22 | 8 | |
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 94 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 5 | 13 | 27 | 27 | 8 | 7.01 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 89 | 31 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2.94 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 98 | 9 | 9.18% |
| Considering new Interface | 98 | 1 | 1.02% |
| System Installed on time? | 98 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 68245 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 12 |
| Academic | 6 |
| School | 74 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 18 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 56 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2021 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 67 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 23 | 12 | 20 | 7 | 7.42 | 7 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 67 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 16 | 19 | 15 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 66 | 4 | 5 | 15 | 12 | 30 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 | |||||
| Electronic Functionality | 65 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 6.37 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 65 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 13 | 20 | 21 | 9 | 7.51 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 66 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 30 | 9 | 7.74 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 65 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 17 | 25 | 9 | 7.57 | 8 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 53 | 20 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2.83 | 2 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 68 | 3 | 4.41% |
| Considering new Interface | 68 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 68 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 289474 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 10 |
| Academic | 3 |
| School | 45 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 13 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 37 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
| 2020 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 90 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 26 | 15 | 33 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 90 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 23 | 19 | 33 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | ||
| Print Functionality | 89 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 27 | 41 | 9 | 8.00 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 85 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 8 | 18 | 9 | 25 | 9 | 6.42 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 89 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 21 | 23 | 34 | 9 | 7.70 | 8 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 88 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 16 | 19 | 37 | 9 | 7.68 | 8 | |||
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 90 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 14 | 18 | 41 | 9 | 7.49 | 8 | |||
| Open Source Interest | 76 | 28 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 15 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2.21 | 2 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 94 | 7 | 7.45% |
| Considering new Interface | 94 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 94 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 870128 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 21 |
| Academic | 6 |
| School | 63 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 21 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 54 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
| 2019 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 113 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 34 | 35 | 29 | 8 | 7.47 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 113 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 34 | 31 | 28 | 7 | 7.37 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 113 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 43 | 41 | 8 | 7.88 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 106 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 10 | 26 | 23 | 17 | 7 | 6.33 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 112 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 27 | 33 | 32 | 8 | 7.49 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 111 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 21 | 34 | 38 | 9 | 7.61 | 8 | |
| Support Improvement | 108 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 28 | 10 | 13 | 23 | 19 | 5 | 6.44 | 7 | |
| Company Loyalty | 110 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 31 | 35 | 9 | 7.13 | 8 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 112 | 39 | 13 | 15 | 5 | 14 | 14 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2.41 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 114 | 7 | 6.14% |
| Considering new Interface | 114 | 4 | 3.51% |
| System Installed on time? | 114 | 107 | 93.86% |
| Average Collection size: | 152483 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 17 |
| Academic | 7 |
| School | 81 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 24 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 73 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 3 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2018 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 201 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 20 | 40 | 52 | 65 | 9 | 7.46 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 200 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 27 | 36 | 59 | 57 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 199 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 35 | 50 | 86 | 9 | 7.81 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 195 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 20 | 26 | 35 | 35 | 46 | 9 | 6.48 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 199 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 39 | 49 | 72 | 9 | 7.56 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 198 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 20 | 35 | 44 | 77 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 188 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 47 | 24 | 24 | 30 | 42 | 5 | 6.54 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 193 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 14 | 19 | 22 | 32 | 77 | 9 | 7.01 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 191 | 77 | 17 | 18 | 11 | 23 | 19 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 2.46 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 204 | 17 | 8.33% |
| Considering new Interface | 204 | 8 | 3.92% |
| System Installed on time? | 204 | 193 | 94.61% |
| Average Collection size: | 41067 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 31 |
| Academic | 6 |
| School | 158 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 40 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 125 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 4 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
The following table presents the 2017 results according to the type and size of the library.
| Destiny | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 312 | 7.46 | 8 | 7.00 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.83 | 0 | 0 | 266 | 7.54 | 1 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 310 | 7.29 | 7 | 6.57 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.53 | 0 | 0 | 265 | 7.40 | 1 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 309 | 7.88 | 8 | 7.25 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 7.30 | 0 | 0 | 263 | 7.97 | 1 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 303 | 6.56 | 8 | 6.13 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 5.20 | 0 | 0 | 257 | 6.76 | 1 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 304 | 7.64 | 7 | 6.86 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 7.10 | 0 | 0 | 260 | 7.73 | 1 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 301 | 7.30 | 8 | 5.00 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.30 | 0 | 0 | 255 | 7.48 | 1 | |||||
| 2017 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 312 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 13 | 34 | 63 | 104 | 82 | 8 | 7.46 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 310 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 42 | 56 | 114 | 65 | 8 | 7.29 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 309 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 21 | 52 | 103 | 119 | 9 | 7.88 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 303 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 16 | 35 | 40 | 55 | 68 | 60 | 8 | 6.56 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 309 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 13 | 20 | 55 | 101 | 102 | 9 | 7.62 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 304 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 24 | 56 | 79 | 117 | 9 | 7.64 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 295 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 28 | 95 | 19 | 38 | 39 | 65 | 5 | 6.38 | 6 |
| Company Loyalty | 301 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 23 | 15 | 48 | 73 | 110 | 9 | 7.30 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 300 | 115 | 37 | 36 | 19 | 30 | 29 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 2.26 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 313 | 12 | 3.83% |
| Considering new Interface | 313 | 10 | 3.19% |
| System Installed on time? | 313 | 287 | 91.69% |
| Average Collection size: | 61607 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 30 |
| Academic | 8 |
| School | 267 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 65 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 202 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 3 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2016 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 611 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 14 | 26 | 45 | 137 | 200 | 174 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 602 | 3 | 11 | 5 | 13 | 29 | 58 | 119 | 211 | 153 | 8 | 7.45 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 609 | 3 | 6 | 15 | 17 | 26 | 92 | 215 | 235 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 574 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 18 | 31 | 69 | 75 | 105 | 123 | 129 | 9 | 6.75 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 610 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 18 | 26 | 43 | 110 | 200 | 198 | 8 | 7.62 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 594 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 22 | 28 | 32 | 92 | 164 | 231 | 9 | 7.57 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 573 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 57 | 149 | 49 | 68 | 104 | 126 | 5 | 6.53 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 590 | 20 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 30 | 42 | 37 | 73 | 150 | 219 | 9 | 7.24 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 568 | 216 | 57 | 54 | 36 | 78 | 61 | 26 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 0 | 2.40 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 621 | 21 | 3.38% |
| Considering new Interface | 621 | 25 | 4.03% |
| System Installed on time? | 621 | 562 | 90.50% |
| Average Collection size: | 44857 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 61 |
| Academic | 8 |
| School | 539 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 118 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 360 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 7 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2015 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 131 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 24 | 40 | 34 | 8 | 7.37 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 131 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 17 | 28 | 39 | 30 | 8 | 7.28 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 129 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 27 | 33 | 47 | 9 | 7.62 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 124 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 18 | 16 | 28 | 13 | 22 | 7 | 6.11 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 129 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 31 | 39 | 34 | 8 | 7.49 | 8 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 129 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 13 | 23 | 33 | 45 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | |||
| Support Improvement | 118 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 33 | 9 | 21 | 12 | 26 | 5 | 6.28 | 7 | |
| Company Loyalty | 126 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 8 | 18 | 25 | 48 | 9 | 7.10 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 123 | 59 | 9 | 16 | 3 | 17 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1.93 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 137 | 11 | 8.03% |
| Considering new Interface | 137 | 5 | 3.65% |
| System Installed on time? | 137 | 122 | 89.05% |
| Average Collection size: | 183623 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 45 |
| Academic | 4 |
| School | 84 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 15 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 98 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 5 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2014 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 120 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 23 | 41 | 29 | 8 | 7.22 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 120 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 24 | 42 | 29 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 120 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 19 | 43 | 40 | 8 | 7.63 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 115 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 15 | 25 | 28 | 12 | 8 | 6.12 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 119 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 20 | 39 | 37 | 8 | 7.43 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 118 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 18 | 31 | 44 | 9 | 7.43 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 113 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 41 | 8 | 13 | 11 | 21 | 5 | 6.00 | 5 | |
| Company Loyalty | 117 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 16 | 22 | 46 | 9 | 6.94 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 112 | 48 | 15 | 12 | 3 | 13 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2.09 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 122 | 13 | 10.66% |
| Considering new Interface | 122 | 5 | 4.10% |
| System Installed on time? | 122 | 113 | 92.62% |
| Average Collection size: | 155840 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 33 |
| Academic | 4 |
| School | 81 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 19 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 80 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2013 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 363 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 30 | 80 | 133 | 104 | 8 | 7.75 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 363 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 15 | 22 | 93 | 139 | 85 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 362 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 13 | 58 | 120 | 162 | 9 | 8.13 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 333 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 42 | 49 | 83 | 79 | 52 | 7 | 6.77 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 362 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 18 | 67 | 133 | 125 | 8 | 7.84 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 360 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 21 | 61 | 101 | 149 | 9 | 7.80 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 346 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 121 | 25 | 36 | 71 | 67 | 5 | 6.48 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 355 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 19 | 18 | 48 | 89 | 163 | 9 | 7.73 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 346 | 154 | 33 | 28 | 20 | 25 | 60 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2.11 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 368 | 5 | 1.36% |
| Considering new Interface | 368 | 4 | 1.09% |
| System Installed on time? | 368 | 337 | 91.58% |
| Average Collection size: | 37635 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 26 |
| Academic | 2 |
| School | 335 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 61 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 248 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2012 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 48 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 7.17 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 47 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 7 | 6.62 | 7 | |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 48 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 48 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 17 | 20 | 9 | 8.02 | 8 | ||||
| Support Improvement | 46 | 1 | 14 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 6.78 | 7 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 48 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 17 | 9 | 6.67 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 48 | 18 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.19 | 2 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 49 | 8 | 16.33% |
| Considering new Interface | 49 | 3 | 6.12% |
| System Installed on time? | 49 | 46 | 93.88% |
| Average Collection size: | 60496 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 36 |
| Academic | 3 |
| School | 10 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 5 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 40 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2011 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 37 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6.97 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 36 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6.64 | 7 | |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 37 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7.24 | 7 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 37 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 7.24 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 35 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 6.17 | 5 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 37 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 9 | 6.46 | 7 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 37 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3.14 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 37 | 5 | 13.51% |
| Considering new Interface | 37 | 2 | 5.41% |
| System Installed on time? | 37 | 34 | 91.89% |
| Average Collection size: | 74155 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 22 |
| Academic | 1 |
| School | 14 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 5 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 25 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2010 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 8 | 6.65 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 23 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 6.35 | 7 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 6.57 | 7 | |
| Support Improvement | 23 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5.96 | 5 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 23 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6.09 | 8 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 23 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3.04 | 2 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 23 | 2 | 8.70% |
| Considering new Interface | 23 | 1 | 4.35% |
| System Installed on time? | 23 | 22 | 95.65% |
| Average Collection size: | 20091 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 15 |
| Academic | 0 |
| School | 8 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 18 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2009 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7.40 | 8 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 7.53 | 8 | |||||
| Support Improvement | 14 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6.21 | 8 | |||||
| Company Loyalty | 15 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6.93 | 8 | ||||||
| Open Source Interest | 15 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2.53 | 1 | ||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 15 | 2 | 13.33% |
| Considering new Interface | 15 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 15 | 14 | 93.33% |
| 2008 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 7.13 | 8 | |||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 8.25 | 9 | |||||||
| Support Satisfaction | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | |||||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 7.25 | 8 | |||||
| Open Source Interest | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4.14 | 4 | |||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 8 | 1 | 12.50% |
| Considering new Interface | 8 | 1 | 12.50% |
| System Installed on time? | 8 | 7 | 87.50% |
| 2007 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 7 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 7.14 | 8 | ||||||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | |||||
| Support Satisfaction | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 7.10 | 8 | |||||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 10 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7.00 | 7 | |||||
| Open Source Interest | 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4.10 | 5 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 10 | 2 | 20.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 10 | 1 | 10.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 10 | 1 | 10.00% |
2022 : gen: 7.20 company 6.99 loyalty 7.01 support 7.22
2021 : gen: 7.42 company 7.51 loyalty 7.57 support 7.74
2020 : gen: 7.50 company 7.70 loyalty 7.49 support 7.68
2019 : gen: 7.47 company 7.49 loyalty 7.13 support 7.61
2018 : gen: 7.46 company 7.56 loyalty 7.01 support 7.59
2017 : gen: 7.46 company 7.62 loyalty 7.30 support 7.64
2016 : gen: 7.54 company 7.62 loyalty 7.24 support 7.57
2015 : gen: 7.37 company 7.49 loyalty 7.10 support 7.50
2014 : gen: 7.22 company 7.43 loyalty 6.94 support 7.43
2013 : gen: 7.75 company 7.84 loyalty 7.73 support 7.80
2012 : gen: 7.17 company 7.67 loyalty 6.67 support 8.02
2011 : gen: 6.97 company 7.24 loyalty 6.46 support 7.24
2010 : gen: 6.65 company 6.35 loyalty 6.09 support 6.57
2009 : gen: 7.20 company 7.40 loyalty 6.93 support 7.53
2008 : gen: 7.13 company 8.25 loyalty 7.25 support 7.38
2007 : gen: 7.14 company 7.20 loyalty 7.00 support 7.10
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)
|
|
|