Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Evergreen


2018 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction39 1 1 2 4 10 16 5 87.188
ILS Functionality39 1 1 3 4 12 13 5 87.107
Print Functionality39 2 1 1 2 8 18 7 87.188
Electronic Functionality38 6 1 3 2 4 2 9 10 1 85.327
Company Satisfaction39 1 1 2 2 4 15 14 87.678
Support Satisfaction37 1 1 3 4 9 19 97.929
Support Improvement34 2 2 1 11 2 4 4 8 56.216
Company Loyalty37 1 1 2 8 11 14 97.768
Open Source Interest34 2 3 2 2 3 22 97.979

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS39 410.26%
Considering new Interface39 37.69%
System Installed on time?39 3589.74%

Average Collection size: 276516

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[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.

EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1427.27 76.2931987.43106.8011157.40
ILSFunctionality1427.08 76.0031987.31106.7011157.13
PrintFunctionality1427.43 76.5731987.50107.3011157.67
ElectronicFunctionality1386.28 75.4331956.57105.1011156.00
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1357.61 76.8621937.84106.9011147.64
CompanyLoyalty1277.04 66.3331907.2186.8811146.43



2017 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction142 1 2 2 9 19 41 41 27 77.277
ILS Functionality142 3 3 16 16 45 38 21 77.087
Print Functionality142 1 1 1 4 5 15 36 44 35 87.438
Electronic Functionality138 3 3 4 6 6 15 22 37 31 11 76.287
Company Satisfaction137 1 2 6 11 8 28 34 47 97.498
Support Satisfaction135 1 3 5 7 9 23 37 50 97.618
Support Improvement133 1 1 8 35 6 17 36 29 86.897
Company Loyalty127 7 1 5 4 11 10 14 27 48 97.048
Open Source Interest121 15 4 2 3 9 6 2 3 9 68 96.619

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS142 53.52%
Considering new Interface142 117.75%
System Installed on time?142 12487.32%

Average Collection size: 462117

TypeCount
Public109
Academic11
School1
Consortium15
Special1

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



2016 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction114 1 1 5 7 17 23 39 21 87.228
ILS Functionality113 1 8 4 16 30 34 20 87.197
Print Functionality112 1 1 4 6 12 22 38 28 87.428
Electronic Functionality112 2 1 5 3 6 16 19 24 26 10 86.297
Company Satisfaction113 2 1 4 8 11 19 32 36 97.408
Support Satisfaction111 3 2 3 8 10 14 26 45 97.478
Support Improvement109 3 2 29 8 11 23 33 96.968
Company Loyalty104 7 2 2 2 1 9 6 11 19 45 97.038
Open Source Interest105 15 2 1 3 5 2 4 5 8 60 96.729

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 65.17%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 10792.24%

Average Collection size: 340121

TypeCount
Public88
Academic13
School1
Consortium8
Special3

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



2015 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction111 2 3 3 4 17 30 32 20 87.137
ILS Functionality110 2 2 6 4 13 33 31 19 77.117
Print Functionality111 1 4 4 15 19 36 32 87.548
Electronic Functionality105 4 1 4 6 8 12 10 25 23 12 76.157
Company Satisfaction107 2 1 1 3 4 6 8 18 28 36 97.298
Support Satisfaction106 4 1 4 4 4 6 10 29 44 97.398
Support Improvement106 4 7 29 7 11 20 28 56.647
Company Loyalty103 3 2 3 1 3 9 7 11 27 37 97.158
Open Source Interest96 10 6 3 6 2 1 3 1 64 96.849

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS116 54.31%
Considering new Interface116 32.59%
System Installed on time?116 9985.34%

Average Collection size: 182296

TypeCount
Public96
Academic10
School0
Consortium4
Special2

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



2014 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction91 2 2 7 6 16 23 23 12 76.787
ILS Functionality91 2 4 6 9 11 26 26 7 76.647
Print Functionality89 1 5 7 4 25 30 17 87.298
Electronic Functionality89 3 3 4 14 12 19 16 10 8 65.756
Company Satisfaction89 2 2 3 9 12 17 22 22 87.107
Support Satisfaction89 2 1 6 6 11 19 22 22 87.127
Support Improvement89 1 1 6 25 12 14 11 19 56.526
Company Loyalty85 4 1 2 1 5 12 9 10 17 24 96.647
Open Source Interest79 8 1 2 1 3 3 4 3 5 49 97.109

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 22.15%
Considering new Interface93 88.60%
System Installed on time?93 8086.02%

Average Collection size: 203683

TypeCount
Public77
Academic6
School0
Consortium5
Special2

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



2013 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction71 1 4 3 2 9 20 18 14 76.977
ILS Functionality71 2 3 2 1 3 10 17 20 13 86.897
Print Functionality71 1 1 1 3 2 6 16 26 15 87.318
Electronic Functionality70 5 1 3 6 3 14 4 20 8 6 75.566
Company Satisfaction70 1 2 1 1 2 2 5 14 23 19 87.268
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 1 1 3 6 4 13 19 19 87.158
Support Improvement69 2 1 2 9 7 16 17 15 86.967
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 3 6 1 11 16 23 97.088
Open Source Interest58 7 1 3 2 1 2 6 36 97.169

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS71 22.82%
Considering new Interface71 34.23%
System Installed on time?71 6185.92%

Average Collection size: 211418

TypeCount
Public57
Academic7
School0
Consortium4
Special1

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 10 2 4 3 12 9 31 25 10 76.227
ILS Functionality106 2 5 15 8 15 31 22 8 76.277
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction104 2 2 3 12 9 9 23 22 22 76.707
Support Satisfaction103 1 1 4 3 12 6 10 21 19 26 96.697
Support Improvement102 2 2 2 10 25 12 11 24 14 56.256
Company Loyalty101 6 2 1 2 10 6 5 19 26 24 86.607
Open Source Interest89 9 2 1 1 2 1 4 7 62 97.489

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS111 21.80%
Considering new Interface111 65.41%
System Installed on time?111 9181.98%

Average Collection size: 964406

TypeCount
Public96
Academic3
School1
Consortium7
Special2

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



2011 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction60 1 1 1 4 2 12 23 9 7 76.627
ILS Functionality59 1 1 2 3 4 11 22 10 5 76.427
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction60 2 3 2 4 5 6 24 14 87.128
Support Satisfaction59 2 1 3 5 9 5 19 15 87.058
Support Improvement57 2 1 1 18 6 6 14 9 56.467
Company Loyalty58 6 2 1 2 4 4 5 9 25 96.748
Open Source Interest47 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 34 97.779

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS62 11.61%
Considering new Interface62 34.84%
System Installed on time?62 5182.26%

Average Collection size: 118879

TypeCount
Public53
Academic5
School1
Consortium2
Special1

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



2010 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 1 2 8 4 16 7 8 76.837
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction45 2 1 2 2 2 7 12 8 9 76.587
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 3 1 5 3 11 8 9 76.297
Support Improvement45 3 1 1 8 8 1 9 9 5 75.827
Company Loyalty44 2 1 2 2 6 2 6 9 14 96.778
Open Source Interest42 1 1 1 2 37 98.319

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS47 12.13%
Considering new Interface47 714.89%
System Installed on time?47 4187.23%

Average Collection size: 178623

TypeCount
Public41
Academic3
School0
Consortium2
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0008
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction50 1 11 5 21 6 6 76.727
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction50 2 1 1 13 1 15 10 7 76.607
Support Satisfaction49 2 2 13 2 15 7 8 76.457
Support Improvement48 3 3 12 6 2 16 6 86.467
Company Loyalty50 1 1 1 14 1 8 11 13 56.827
Open Source Interest44 1 1 1 1 40 98.439

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS51 11.96%
Considering new Interface51 611.76%
System Installed on time?51 4078.43%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Evergreen Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction13 1 2 4 4 2 77.087
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction13 1 1 7 1 3 77.157
Support Satisfaction13 1 2 3 2 5 97.007
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty13 2 1 2 3 5 97.628
Open Source Interest10 10 99.009

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS13 17.69%
Considering new Interface13 17.69%
System Installed on time?13 1076.92%




4 Responses for Evergreen in 2007

2018 : gen: 7.18 company 7.67 loyalty 7.76 support 7.92

2017 : gen: 7.27 company 7.49 loyalty 7.04 support 7.61

2016 : gen: 7.22 company 7.40 loyalty 7.03 support 7.47

2015 : gen: 7.13 company 7.29 loyalty 7.15 support 7.39

2014 : gen: 6.78 company 7.10 loyalty 6.64 support 7.12

2013 : gen: 6.97 company 7.26 loyalty 7.08 support 7.15

2012 : gen: 6.22 company 6.70 loyalty 6.60 support 6.69

2011 : gen: 6.62 company 7.12 loyalty 6.74 support 7.05

2010 : gen: 6.83 company 6.58 loyalty 6.77 support 6.29

2009 : gen: 6.72 company 6.60 loyalty 6.82 support 6.45

2008 : gen: 7.08 company 7.15 loyalty 7.62 support 7.00

Comments (survey2017)

Regarding the 4th question, we don't use our ILS to manage our electronic resources, but since we subscribe to so few databases, we don't need to have our ILS manage them. I did not try to answer the question about customer support since we are still in our first year on Evergreen. I don't have a previous year of support for comparison. Additionally, since we are now members of a consortium, we get our support from the consortium, and only indirectly from Equinox. Problems we report that the consortium help desk can't answer are passed on to Equinox. So there are two levels of support here, and it's difficult to parse it out in the survey questions. We are mostly happy with the support we get from the consortium; not so sure about the more knotty problems that get passed on to Equinox. I also can't really answer the question about whether we would consider working with the company again. We are now part of a consortium, and as of now that appears to be a permanent situation. Any decisions on vendor are up to the consortium, not up to us. Obviously we would consider implementing an open source ILS since we currently have one. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Most of the "5" answers regarding satisfaction with the "company" really should be "N/A" but that wasn't an option. We no longer have a support contract at all. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Currently have Open Source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sitka Evergreen has a number of annoying issues. Support is good online and on the phone. Print manual is not user friendly. The reporting features are very cumbersome and I find that I don't take advantage of the feature as I should. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been running Evergreen since its inception in September 2006. We are self-administered and our member libraries appear to be satisfied with our team's performance and with the functionality of the ILS. We are looking for ways to expand Evergreen's support of e-resource vendors so patrons have an easier time finding e-resources within Evergreen's on-board OPAC. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We experience a significant amount of down time and Equinox can't seem to improve the problem. The[...] is looking at getting a new support vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The reviews are a bit lower than last year due to a Holds issue that we are currently experiencing with Evergreen now that we have opened our catalogue to our consortium. All other functionality of Evergreen are otherwise working well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The product is hosted by the vendor. There seems to be a fair amount of downtime, and a general slowdown every afternoon. There seems to be a lack of responsiveness to this ongoing issue. They fix the immediate problem but not the underlying causes. We are a growing consortium and the catalog is a mess because the algorithms used to merge new libraries don't work well. Attempts to clean up the mess have not been particularly successful. Overall management of the consortium by State Library has not been stellar, which has not helped the situation. It is sometimes difficult to tell if the problem is the vendor or State Library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Company for maintenance doesn't necessarily apply to open source systems like Evergreen. We are providing most of our own support in-house and with assistance from [...]. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a member of a growing consortium. There are likely to be significant changes in the structure in the next few years. Currently we enjoy the ability to share collections across the state. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are extremely satisfied with our decision to migrate to Evergreen (2011 to present). The software is very versatile and our occasional support from Equinox has been outstanding. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We get good customer service from the organization that hosts our catalog. We do not deal with the company who developed the catalog. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

You need a NA option! Or a better way for consortium using open source software to answer. For example: Customer support could be answered for our Internet access for one company, for software developer for our programing issues as a different company (or "person" in our case), and a different system administrator. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are no longer contracting with an outside vendor and have not done so since August of 2015. We support Evergreen entirely in-house. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sitka-Evergreen has some issues, but for the price, it really can't be beat. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been using Evergreen for about a year and a half. While some aspects aren't as desirable as other systems we've used, we are largely pleased with Evergreen, the responsiveness of the Mobius help staff, and how receptive to our needs and wants in the ILS they have been. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We originally implemented Evergreen in house with out a vendor. We currently use an independent contractor for system upgrades and support as we need it. Also, we have approximately 55,000 print items in our collection an approximately 500,000 ebooks added to our library collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Reporting function is extremely frustrating. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The worst part is the inability to pull items up through the search function causing staff to try multiple ways until item can be located. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

As a member of a public library system, this library doesn't have direct control of purchase of an ILS. As a member, this library's opinions and comments are solicted and welcomed by the public library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have access to many resources but have to pay for one of them if we want to use it. There are times, when trying to find a MARC record, these resources don't have it. I feel for the price of these services and how they go up every year, all resources should be accessible to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We love the ILS, but the initial training we received before migrating focused on applications that weren't relevant to our day to day usage. We hope future trainings, especially as Evergreen/SPARK moves to a web client in 2018, are more geared towards the applications we need to know how to complete. Other than that, we're very happy with the ILS. The union catalog has been running smoothly and lets us provide so many more materials to our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of [...] which uses Evergreen. We are satisfied with Evergreen but we are changing vendors from Equinox to Mobius. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Item count is a title count of all types, including physical and electronic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We like our ILS overall. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

This ILS is being provided through our state library and all my support comes from them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The survey needed a N/A on several questions. For example: we don't use our ILS for print solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (our consortium) has made some useful updates this year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

This library never interfaces with the company that provides this ILS at all. All concerns are put to our library system, who handles that end. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

ILS