Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Horizon


2018 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 1 2 1 3 15 9 9 6 66.657
ILS Functionality46 1 4 2 7 9 11 9 3 76.247
Print Functionality45 3 2 6 12 13 9 87.277
Electronic Functionality44 2 2 7 6 2 4 8 5 5 3 64.825
Company Satisfaction45 4 3 3 8 10 8 9 76.717
Support Satisfaction42 1 2 6 6 6 7 14 97.178
Support Improvement44 1 8 16 2 6 2 9 56.055
Company Loyalty44 3 1 5 1 1 8 3 4 6 12 95.917
Open Source Interest45 12 1 6 1 5 6 3 6 3 2 03.734

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 1736.96%
Considering new Interface46 613.04%
System Installed on time?46 4086.96%

Average Collection size: 560619

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00013
[3] 100,001-250,00012
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[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.

HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1316.54 155.93116.732336.85396.8586.63276.57
ILSFunctionality1316.31 155.73116.182336.52396.5686.38277.00
PrintFunctionality1317.28 156.87118.002337.15397.4487.13277.71
ElectronicFunctionality1294.86 143.86113.732325.78394.9084.63276.43
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1297.01 157.47116.732316.74397.1087.00277.57
CompanyLoyalty1296.29 156.27115.452336.21386.3787.25177.43



2017 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction131 1 5 3 7 19 15 37 31 13 76.547
ILS Functionality131 7 5 8 14 23 38 32 4 76.317
Print Functionality131 2 6 11 13 29 42 28 87.288
Electronic Functionality129 5 8 14 14 9 22 19 20 13 5 54.865
Company Satisfaction131 5 2 9 13 12 31 46 13 86.807
Support Satisfaction129 1 5 3 4 14 11 25 37 29 87.018
Support Improvement129 2 1 2 6 10 50 10 21 15 12 55.805
Company Loyalty129 4 1 7 8 6 13 21 16 32 21 86.297
Open Source Interest129 31 17 17 9 13 14 9 8 7 4 03.122

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS133 4231.58%
Considering new Interface133 1813.53%
System Installed on time?133 11586.47%

Average Collection size: 847056

TypeCount
Public82
Academic29
School2
Consortium7
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00044
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction97 2 1 6 10 15 30 22 11 76.767
ILS Functionality99 2 6 2 14 13 33 21 8 76.567
Print Functionality99 1 2 6 7 26 36 21 87.498
Electronic Functionality97 4 5 7 16 3 12 14 21 9 6 75.116
Company Satisfaction98 3 7 5 17 22 27 17 87.017
Support Satisfaction97 1 1 2 3 8 9 21 28 24 87.228
Support Improvement99 2 1 2 4 7 23 20 13 14 13 56.066
Company Loyalty99 3 2 3 1 9 8 12 20 20 21 96.557
Open Source Interest95 28 12 13 3 7 7 10 8 5 2 02.992

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS99 2828.28%
Considering new Interface99 1515.15%
System Installed on time?99 9292.93%

Average Collection size: 1123422

TypeCount
Public56
Academic24
School2
Consortium6
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00031
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,00029
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction108 1 3 7 7 13 21 28 22 6 76.237
ILS Functionality108 2 3 4 10 13 22 27 21 6 76.197
Print Functionality108 1 1 1 12 18 22 37 16 87.117
Electronic Functionality106 5 11 13 9 7 17 14 15 12 3 54.615
Company Satisfaction108 1 3 7 6 10 14 27 29 11 86.547
Support Satisfaction106 1 3 7 4 9 5 29 31 17 86.827
Support Improvement105 3 3 11 29 13 20 15 11 56.106
Company Loyalty108 6 3 10 1 5 8 13 21 18 23 96.137
Open Source Interest104 33 16 10 9 7 9 11 4 3 2 02.622

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS109 3733.94%
Considering new Interface109 1816.51%
System Installed on time?109 9788.99%

Average Collection size: 479033

TypeCount
Public61
Academic30
School1
Consortium6
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00030
[3] 100,001-250,00026
[4] 250,001-1,000,00034
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction127 5 8 2 10 26 20 31 21 4 75.816
ILS Functionality127 4 7 10 15 21 19 31 19 1 75.556
Print Functionality127 2 1 1 3 10 10 15 28 40 17 86.787
Electronic Functionality125 9 13 17 13 19 17 16 9 10 2 44.034
Company Satisfaction127 1 6 4 3 11 25 15 23 27 12 86.046
Support Satisfaction126 2 4 2 5 7 16 11 30 35 14 86.457
Support Improvement127 3 4 4 4 15 42 16 14 14 11 55.505
Company Loyalty125 8 7 5 4 8 18 12 21 27 15 85.777
Open Source Interest127 30 12 13 10 18 16 8 11 2 7 03.343

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS128 5542.97%
Considering new Interface128 2620.31%
System Installed on time?128 10884.38%

Average Collection size: 478138

TypeCount
Public81
Academic30
School2
Consortium5
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00041
[3] 100,001-250,00029
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction104 3 1 11 11 15 14 18 25 6 85.936
ILS Functionality104 1 1 7 10 11 15 13 22 18 6 75.716
Print Functionality103 1 3 7 15 10 18 31 18 86.897
Electronic Functionality102 7 12 11 13 13 11 12 11 10 2 34.194
Company Satisfaction103 2 2 5 5 8 16 11 22 18 14 76.117
Support Satisfaction103 1 3 4 3 9 10 11 11 28 23 86.607
Support Improvement100 4 1 1 4 10 36 9 12 8 15 55.725
Company Loyalty103 8 2 3 11 6 17 10 14 15 17 55.646
Open Source Interest103 25 9 12 10 6 16 7 8 2 8 03.433

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS108 4844.44%
Considering new Interface108 3128.70%
System Installed on time?108 9386.11%

Average Collection size: 631804

TypeCount
Public68
Academic20
School3
Consortium7
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00029
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00011
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction140 4 4 5 9 11 21 14 44 20 8 75.817
ILS Functionality140 2 5 6 13 10 19 17 41 17 10 75.766
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction140 2 3 6 14 12 17 21 32 25 8 75.806
Support Satisfaction139 1 2 5 2 15 19 16 25 36 18 86.437
Support Improvement137 3 3 4 5 8 55 12 18 16 13 55.665
Company Loyalty139 16 2 10 7 10 18 19 20 19 18 75.336
Open Source Interest136 33 12 21 8 9 17 11 12 6 7 03.383

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS145 7249.66%
Considering new Interface145 4128.28%
System Installed on time?145 12988.97%

Average Collection size: 509664

TypeCount
Public103
Academic24
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00036
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,00041
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction149 2 4 6 5 11 28 22 44 17 10 75.916
ILS Functionality141 1 2 6 11 8 21 24 36 20 12 76.016
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction149 2 2 9 9 15 12 27 36 29 8 75.946
Support Satisfaction147 3 3 6 12 13 23 29 40 18 86.557
Support Improvement147 1 1 6 3 12 49 17 23 15 20 55.976
Company Loyalty149 10 5 8 5 12 17 21 29 23 19 75.726
Open Source Interest146 31 15 16 11 10 16 14 11 12 10 03.754

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS150 8254.67%
Considering new Interface150 4530.00%
System Installed on time?150 13992.67%

Average Collection size: 639134

TypeCount
Public101
Academic31
School4
Consortium8
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00037
[3] 100,001-250,00037
[4] 250,001-1,000,00047
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction179 1 1 9 9 20 24 31 44 27 13 75.996
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction179 4 3 19 15 18 29 22 43 19 7 75.316
Support Satisfaction179 4 4 14 9 23 17 23 45 24 16 75.736
Support Improvement179 10 8 12 10 25 55 17 23 12 7 54.805
Company Loyalty179 21 9 9 11 20 21 24 31 19 14 74.945
Open Source Interest176 31 15 15 8 17 19 16 14 14 27 04.445

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS185 10657.30%
Considering new Interface185 6535.14%
System Installed on time?185 16287.57%

Average Collection size: 399582

TypeCount
Public137
Academic27
School3
Consortium5
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00045
[3] 100,001-250,00048
[4] 250,001-1,000,00052
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction190 3 5 6 7 13 24 25 69 31 7 76.077
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction188 4 14 19 21 21 23 25 37 16 8 74.915
Support Satisfaction188 3 5 10 16 14 31 25 39 28 17 75.776
Support Improvement177 6 10 11 9 21 59 25 16 14 6 54.895
Company Loyalty186 26 9 12 9 21 30 16 26 22 15 54.755
Open Source Interest185 27 13 20 20 17 20 18 23 7 20 04.254

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS197 9045.69%
Considering new Interface197 4824.37%
System Installed on time?197 15980.71%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 3 9 18 24 20 41 54 31 3 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction206 17 10 22 25 31 33 25 27 11 5 54.324
Support Satisfaction206 8 5 16 21 20 20 37 40 31 8 75.356
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty206 25 17 17 17 24 33 21 21 14 17 54.375
Open Source Interest206 21 22 18 14 18 22 15 26 15 35 94.805

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS208 12761.06%
Considering new Interface208 5928.37%
System Installed on time?208 18990.87%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction178 1 3 5 4 10 22 48 56 24 5 76.136
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 17 14 22 33 46 44 40 33 14 8 44.495
Support Satisfaction270 2 10 14 14 25 32 47 58 50 18 75.896
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty269 28 17 21 21 34 65 29 29 16 9 54.355
Open Source Interest269 35 25 32 27 26 36 24 25 17 22 54.124

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS274 13649.64%
Considering new Interface274 6624.09%
System Installed on time?274 10.36%




2018 : gen: 6.65 company 6.71 loyalty 5.91 support 7.17

2017 : gen: 6.54 company 6.80 loyalty 6.29 support 7.01

2016 : gen: 6.76 company 7.01 loyalty 6.55 support 7.22

2015 : gen: 6.23 company 6.54 loyalty 6.13 support 6.82

2014 : gen: 5.81 company 6.04 loyalty 5.77 support 6.45

2013 : gen: 5.93 company 6.11 loyalty 5.64 support 6.60

2012 : gen: 5.81 company 5.80 loyalty 5.33 support 6.43

2011 : gen: 5.91 company 5.94 loyalty 5.72 support 6.55

2010 : gen: 5.99 company 5.31 loyalty 4.94 support 5.73

2009 : gen: 6.07 company 4.91 loyalty 4.75 support 5.77

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 4.32 loyalty 4.37 support 5.35

2007 : gen: 6.13 company 4.49 loyalty 4.35 support 5.89

Comments (survey2017)

Because we are able to adapt our customer experience quickly on the open source VuFind product, we are quite pleased with SirsiDynix Horizon--though we would prefer the Blue Cloud products were more fully developed by now. We are likely to sign a 5-year deal with SD, but we are tempted by the Spark product due to low costs, we are concerned with the inflexibility of such a large consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

It would be ideal if our ILS included a method to manage patron suggestions for purchase. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

RFP evaluation to be completed later this year. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The company is taking a long time (years) to release the new cloud based modules, and the couple that have been released are not functional enough to use in production. However, it is beneficial that the company has not forced us to change systems and is trying to cater for all customers regardless of Symphony vs. Horizon so we can migrate at our own pace. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Early days for us re Open Source but we are watching Folio with interest (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

No money to do anything about a lack of discovery service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

SirsiDynix has lost credibility through the promotion of BLUECloud -- a product that seems to still lack key functionality. In comparison, ExLibris is promoting a tried and tested product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

This survey response addresses only the ILS used for the State Library collections, not the union catalog we manage for the state. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

New mobile functionality with the ILS is allowing us to extend the life of the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our ILS Maintenance Contract expires in 2018 so we are taking the opportunity to see what other systems are available. Our library has taken a 30% budget cut so we need functionality and a product that is economical. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Horizon does have some limitations - for example, web services not really equipped to meet our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have have subscribed to Worldcat Discovery because it is required to continue to include our records in Worldcat and for ILL. Due to increasing costs, we may not continue to subscribe in 2018. Not all of our electronic resources have bib records in our catalog. As a law library with a patron subscription to Westlaw and Lexis, these vendors are very unlikely to ever allow patron search via a Discovery system. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The ILS, Horizon, is stable and functional but old. The back end has always been confusing and and often overly complicated. Making changes to itypes and the display is harder than it needs to be. But generally it does its job. However, in order to get new features, we have to buy add ons, many of which are increasingly difficult to get to work with Horizon. Even though SirsiDynix says they fully support Horizon (along with Symphony) it has become clear that they really don't. It feels like there are fewer support staff at SirsiDynix who can help with Horizon when we need it. But the biggest issues have been getting new features to work with Horizon: 1. E-commerce - we had to work with SirsiDynix plus two other vendors to get this to work. It literally took a year and was a nightmare of vendors refusing to talk to each other, phone meetings where one person didn't bother to show up, etc. 2. API to include Overdrive ebooks on our public catalogue. Again, we had to work with SirsiDynix and other vendors, and again, they did not communicate well with each other. I believe this took about 6 months to set up 3. NCIP - this took a full year for SirsiDynix to set up plus much of our Techs's time. They got it working a few weeks before a scheduled Horizon upgrade - which then broke it again. It was then down for another 2 months. Why does SirsiDynix sell a product that they are unable to implement and support? 4. We purchased Blue Cloud Analytics. The delivered product was clearly designed to work with Symphony (not Horizon) and about 75-80% of the reports were broken in one way or another. Again, it is taking significant staff time to find the errors, and get SirsiDynix staff to recognize and explain them. It has been several months now and we are still working to make this a usable product for our staff. On all occasions, SirsiDynix staff have been pleasant to deal with and they mean well, but it's become very obvious that they are unable to properly support the products they are selling. Significant amounts of our staff time have been needed to get these up and running and it feels like this has been downloaded from the vendor to the library. As well, they have been promising new products for years then they release them half completed. For example, Blue Cloud Cataloguing does not include support for viewing multiple records from your own catalogue, does not include support for Authorities and one cannot print labels yet. Therefore, for us, it is unusable. It's frustrating for staff to get excited about something new only to realize that it doesn't work yet. It would be better not to release it at all, rather than something that is only half finished and doesn't work. Similarly, Blue Cloud Analytics was delivered without Acquisitions data and yet was advertised as a replacement for Web Reporter. Needless to say, it is not. We were hoping to stay with Horizon until a really good LSP comes along. Based on our experiences over the last couple of years, I'm not sure if we'll be able to do that any longer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Item count is for physical materials as of the end of FY17. In addition, [...] has 104,354 eBooks/eAudio as of the end of FY17. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The difficulty in answering some of these questions is that SirsiDynix doesn't seem to offer a complete ILS anymore. Lately it seems they've lost focus. The core ILS is aging and newer features/modules are coming with price tags. We're getting less for our money with each passing year. They also seem to be losing sight of the importance of offering a comprehensive ILS. The number of new add-ons and outsourced add-ons (that mean extra dollars), are becoming too numerous to keep track of. SirsiDynix needs to develop innovation from within and focus on maintaining a state-of-the-art ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The public search interface is difficult to use. It needs to be more intuitive. Sirsi-Dynix Horizon seems dated in its display. The Blue Cloud has not become an option--too many problems. Horizon was supposed to be the latest greatest product when purchased. Once the company merged Horizon became a dead-end product. It is not always updated or fixed as quickly as we would like. Tweaks to MARC years ago were never implemented. If the vendor is working towards implementation of RDA, shouldn't we hear something? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our ILS vendor (SirsiDynix) is working hard towards their BLUEcloud solutions. Rightly or wrongly it sometimes feels that this work is more important than improvements / trouble shooting on issues related to the Horizon PC client. While I can understand the desire to move away from the desktop client model, until the BlueCloud modules are fully established, we will be unlikely to move on to it, because of the risk of attempting to move staff onto unfinished product. When we move and retrain, I don't want them switching back and forth. That would be my biggest concern, is that we feel like the desktop client is taking a backseat, and it is actually the product we use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The SD customer support used to be fantastic but with it not having NZ staff anymore it is often a struggle to get help (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The SirsiDynix Horizon platform has remained static with no true improvements for the end user/administrator. Unless you are planning to spend money with the vendor (SirsiDynix) they are extremely slow to assist. SirsiDynix has benefited from a strong history in the library market, and to their advantage, are able to maintain customers because of the current market structure. We feel there is a lack of strategic thinking...products that are being 'sold' to us as the latest and greatest are suddenly no longer being developed. We feel restricted by the lack of changes we can apply to our Kids HIP catalogues, and are disappointed that the vendor has not kept areas of their delivered product (Kids HIP) up to date with equitable and culturally appropriate search categories and graphics (Explore the Library). As a school board with a variety of hardware currently in use, we are limited by the system requirements and restrictions of the vendor. Although we are not customers of Insignia, we were very highly impressed with a webinar that they provided for us. They seem to be extremely responsive to the school library market. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

For our instances within DOD network we are finding none of the vendors meet the IT requirements imposed on us by the DOD hierarchy. Almost all the extra APIs used will not work on our systems. The vendors for Discovery layers from Serial Solutions currently works with limitations but the overall DOD is looking at EDS as a replacement and as of now the limitations especially in displaying of results hasn't been tested on DOD network. Open source options are not allowed on DOD networks without a CON. (Library type: Military; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

SirsiDynix has been very supportive of our organization and how we are adapting to the changing times and needs of our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Just migrated from locally hosted Horizon to SaaS in November 2017. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

While we would be interested in adding Bibliocommons as a discovery layer, we've determined that it is just too expensive for our limited budget. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Horizon is a very good, stable, and reliable system. However our organisational structure has changed, and we no longer have a DBA to maintain our Sybase server, to maintain Horizon, or to develop HIP. In addition, the Library's focus has changed from managing a print collection to managing a mostly digital collection. These digital objects are currently stored in siloed databases that are not integrated with Horizon. We need a new, integrated system that can handle our growing digital collections and we need SaaS support to maintain, backup, and update the system. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

n/a (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Horizon is aging; BLUEcloud development is slow and the product isn't attractive; SD Horizon support is great; but being hosted by the SD SaaS team has been really problematic. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Although Horizon does not manage our electronic resources, our Enterprise online catalog and eResource Central provide that functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Consistent inability to deliver new features/services on time, downtime and inconsistent support requiring request for service credits, SaaS platform is that in name only, lagging years behind industry standards. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

As with all ILS vendors, we sometimes wish that they would spend more time enhancing functionality of core products rather than develop new products that are not useful to our business. For instance, communicating with our customers via notifications and other channels is crucial to our business. There have been no useful enhancements to that functional area. However, we are generally well satisfied with Horizon and with SirsiDynix. We welcome the expanse of features and functionality they offer with their cloud service (BLUEcloud) and that strategic direction is beneficial to us. We envision the Horizon database operating as the core of the system, with enhanced and new functionality residing in cloud servers. That seems a sensible way to enhance the ILS without requiring a costly migration to a new database. Additional services can be offered by 3rd party vendors, integrating with the Horizon database at the core. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

My personal interactions with the vendor have been excellent. They are quick to respond and eager to help. In speaking with other co-workers, they have not received the same service. Sales could be more responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)

Sirsi and Horizon have done a decent job, but they are not doing a good one supporting the products and solving problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

SirsiDynix has improved as a company over the last few years - their plan to move both ILS systems to the BC platform makes sense and is flexible since it supports local/cloud storage and can be implemented incrementally. We would like to see the BC Suite development happen at a faster pace. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix has been an excellent partner with our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Some universities and schools in [...] , our institution included, will merge within 3 to 5 years, with maybe an impact on information system technologies (ILS, Discovery Tool...) (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

My impressions of SirsiDynix as an ILS vendor were improved this year because we were able to implement Enterprise, the more full featured and modern OPAC. The company also made a web based circulation product available. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I just started in this position 4 months ago. I don't know the answer to a lot of these questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are not currently considering a migration, but are keeping an eye on Folio. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our system library manages our Library Database. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Vendor Customer Support is excellent as is the reliability of the remote hosted server (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Counted only physical items, not e-book items in the collection count. Our circulation of physical items continues to go down and we find it less and less justified to continue paying the amounts we are paying for an ILS and for cataloging. We are going to have to find an alternative soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Although we currently utilize a third party discovery product we are investigating options for an updated interface (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

ILS