Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for EOS.Web


2018 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 1 4 4 1 66.908
ILS Functionality10 2 2 4 2 87.208
Print Functionality10 2 3 2 3 77.608
Electronic Functionality9 1 4 1 1 2 66.676
Company Satisfaction10 3 2 3 2 67.408
Support Satisfaction10 2 2 2 4 97.808
Support Improvement10 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 95.907
Company Loyalty10 1 1 2 1 2 3 96.508
Open Source Interest10 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 02.402

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 220.00%
Considering new Interface10 110.00%
System Installed on time?10 770.00%

Average Collection size: 35775

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0007
[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.

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



2017 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction24 4 10 7 3 77.387
ILS Functionality25 8 4 12 1 87.248
Print Functionality25 4 2 14 5 87.808
Electronic Functionality25 2 5 6 7 2 3 76.286
Company Satisfaction25 1 2 4 8 10 97.968
Support Satisfaction25 1 2 2 4 16 98.289
Support Improvement25 5 5 7 3 5 76.927
Company Loyalty24 1 3 2 4 4 10 97.468
Open Source Interest24 11 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 02.381

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS25 00.00%
Considering new Interface25 624.00%
System Installed on time?25 2496.00%

Average Collection size: 115079

TypeCount
Public0
Academic4
School0
Consortium0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00013
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction32 1 2 1 1 4 7 12 4 86.848
ILS Functionality32 1 1 1 1 3 3 9 8 5 76.637
Print Functionality31 1 1 3 2 7 11 6 87.168
Electronic Functionality30 2 2 1 2 1 2 5 5 6 4 85.777
Company Satisfaction32 1 1 2 3 3 4 11 7 87.038
Support Satisfaction32 1 1 4 2 4 6 14 97.538
Support Improvement31 1 3 10 3 4 4 6 56.326
Company Loyalty32 3 1 1 2 4 5 8 8 86.568
Open Source Interest31 12 4 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 02.681

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 618.75%
Considering new Interface32 39.38%
System Installed on time?32 2784.38%

Average Collection size: 79775

TypeCount
Public1
Academic8
School0
Consortium0
Special7

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction33 1 1 4 4 6 8 9 97.218
ILS Functionality33 1 2 3 2 8 8 9 97.218
Print Functionality33 1 2 3 8 7 12 97.648
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 8 6 4 75.977
Company Satisfaction33 1 2 6 3 12 9 87.488
Support Satisfaction33 1 6 4 3 19 98.009
Support Improvement31 1 1 8 3 4 5 9 96.907
Company Loyalty33 1 4 5 4 5 14 97.398
Open Source Interest33 10 5 3 2 4 4 2 1 1 1 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 410.81%
Considering new Interface37 513.51%
System Installed on time?37 3286.49%

Average Collection size: 65164

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 2 3 9 11 11 7 76.877
ILS Functionality45 2 3 1 8 10 14 7 87.027
Print Functionality45 1 2 2 5 5 14 16 97.588
Electronic Functionality42 2 2 4 2 1 3 7 11 2 8 75.767
Company Satisfaction43 1 2 3 4 5 13 15 97.408
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 4 7 7 22 97.608
Support Improvement45 1 1 1 6 12 6 6 2 10 56.076
Company Loyalty45 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 5 8 16 96.518
Open Source Interest45 20 8 1 1 3 6 2 1 3 02.241

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 919.57%
Considering new Interface46 715.22%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 67977

TypeCount
Public1
Academic10
School1
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00027
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction39 1 1 1 3 5 10 8 10 77.107
ILS Functionality38 1 2 6 3 6 10 10 87.088
Print Functionality39 3 2 4 7 7 16 97.568
Electronic Functionality36 1 1 1 1 2 4 7 6 8 5 86.317
Company Satisfaction39 2 1 2 10 10 14 97.548
Support Satisfaction39 1 1 2 1 3 10 21 97.909
Support Improvement39 1 4 8 1 9 5 11 96.777
Company Loyalty38 3 2 1 2 5 9 16 97.268
Open Source Interest39 15 5 5 5 3 1 3 1 1 02.051

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS39 615.38%
Considering new Interface39 820.51%
System Installed on time?39 3897.44%

Average Collection size: 64333

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School1
Consortium0
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction37 1 3 6 15 8 4 76.957
ILS Functionality37 1 2 3 5 11 12 3 86.897
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction37 3 1 7 3 15 8 87.198
Support Satisfaction37 2 7 10 18 97.978
Support Improvement35 2 13 2 4 7 7 56.637
Company Loyalty37 2 1 2 2 1 7 8 14 97.148
Open Source Interest36 19 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 01.780

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 513.51%
Considering new Interface37 38.11%
System Installed on time?37 3594.59%

Average Collection size: 65360

TypeCount
Public1
Academic5
School2
Consortium0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction20 1 4 10 5 87.958
ILS Functionality20 1 2 7 6 4 77.508
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction20 2 13 5 88.158
Support Satisfaction20 3 7 10 98.359
Support Improvement20 6 3 5 2 4 56.757
Company Loyalty20 1 1 6 12 98.359
Open Source Interest20 11 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 01.650

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS20 15.00%
Considering new Interface20 00.00%
System Installed on time?20 1995.00%

Average Collection size: 34479

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00012
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.888
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.758
Support Satisfaction8 1 1 5 1 86.888
Support Improvement8 1 2 1 1 2 1 56.137
Company Loyalty8 1 1 1 3 2 86.638
Open Source Interest8 2 2 2 1 1 02.502

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 00.00%
Considering new Interface8 00.00%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 45095

TypeCount
Public0
Academic1
School0
Consortium0
Special1

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


4 Responses for EOS.Web in 2009


2008 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 2 3 98.008
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.717
Open Source Interest7 1 2 2 1 1 23.293

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 00.00%
Considering new Interface7 00.00%
System Installed on time?7 7100.00%




3 Responses for EOS.Web in 2007

2018 : gen: 6.90 company 7.40 loyalty 6.50 support 7.80

2017 : gen: 7.38 company 7.96 loyalty 7.46 support 8.28

2016 : gen: 6.84 company 7.03 loyalty 6.56 support 7.53

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.48 loyalty 7.39 support 8.00

2014 : gen: 6.87 company 7.40 loyalty 6.51 support 7.60

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.54 loyalty 7.26 support 7.90

2012 : gen: 6.95 company 7.19 loyalty 7.14 support 7.97

2011 : gen: 7.95 company 8.15 loyalty 8.35 support 8.35

2010 : gen: 6.88 company 6.75 loyalty 6.63 support 6.88

2008 : gen: 7.71 company 7.71 loyalty 6.71 support 8.00

Comments (survey2017)

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)

ILS