Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Library.Solution


2018 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction44 1 1 2 1 1 4 7 6 11 10 86.687
ILS Functionality44 1 3 1 2 4 3 14 6 10 76.647
Print Functionality44 1 1 1 3 2 4 7 12 13 97.148
Electronic Functionality44 1 2 1 2 5 3 6 10 9 5 76.097
Company Satisfaction43 1 2 1 2 1 3 7 6 7 13 96.657
Support Satisfaction44 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 5 7 18 96.938
Support Improvement43 1 2 2 5 7 2 8 4 12 96.357
Company Loyalty43 5 1 2 2 2 3 8 3 17 96.427
Open Source Interest44 16 5 3 3 3 2 4 1 1 6 03.072

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS44 1125.00%
Considering new Interface44 12.27%
System Installed on time?44 3988.64%

Average Collection size: 123010

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,00017
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[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.

Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1156.93 97.4430746.74117.270127.420
ILSFunctionality1156.92 97.5630746.84117.090127.080
PrintFunctionality1147.18 97.7820746.95117.730127.580
ElectronicFunctionality1125.89 96.1130725.85117.000115.550
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1157.54 98.0030747.41117.550127.920
CompanyLoyalty1146.67 97.0030736.33117.450127.500



2017 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction115 1 5 2 10 7 14 18 27 31 96.938
ILS Functionality115 1 2 3 8 10 11 24 38 18 86.927
Print Functionality114 2 1 1 6 3 7 11 16 31 36 97.188
Electronic Functionality112 6 3 10 5 7 8 12 19 29 13 85.897
Company Satisfaction114 2 1 3 8 4 9 15 36 36 87.338
Support Satisfaction115 1 2 1 9 4 8 14 27 49 97.548
Support Improvement113 2 5 2 7 24 13 15 23 22 56.477
Company Loyalty114 7 2 3 3 7 10 7 15 22 38 96.678
Open Source Interest115 44 12 14 3 13 9 8 6 1 5 02.512

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS115 2925.22%
Considering new Interface115 119.57%
System Installed on time?115 10893.91%

Average Collection size: 128919

TypeCount
Public85
Academic12
School12
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00067
[3] 100,001-250,00032
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction95 1 1 2 1 4 5 11 17 31 22 87.168
ILS Functionality95 1 2 7 3 11 20 33 18 87.198
Print Functionality95 2 1 1 5 3 8 21 28 26 87.288
Electronic Functionality94 1 3 2 3 5 15 11 27 17 10 76.307
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 2 8 7 15 32 27 87.448
Support Satisfaction92 1 2 3 6 8 14 19 39 97.588
Support Improvement93 1 11 27 7 16 16 15 56.417
Company Loyalty90 3 3 2 3 8 8 5 10 17 31 96.708
Open Source Interest93 30 10 12 8 10 7 5 2 6 3 02.712

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS97 1212.37%
Considering new Interface97 99.28%
System Installed on time?97 8991.75%

Average Collection size: 135641

TypeCount
Public66
Academic13
School12
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 2 2 2 3 5 10 25 26 27 97.218
ILS Functionality102 1 3 3 2 5 14 16 37 21 87.168
Print Functionality102 1 1 4 3 9 13 38 33 87.678
Electronic Functionality99 1 3 6 13 8 24 26 18 86.897
Company Satisfaction102 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 19 33 35 97.588
Support Satisfaction102 3 2 4 2 5 13 35 38 97.668
Support Improvement99 3 1 1 7 20 9 13 18 27 96.727
Company Loyalty101 5 1 2 2 5 8 7 11 31 29 86.928
Open Source Interest102 35 12 12 3 9 9 7 4 1 10 02.882

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 1918.27%
Considering new Interface104 76.73%
System Installed on time?104 9894.23%

Average Collection size: 180187

TypeCount
Public72
Academic11
School13
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 4 7 10 26 25 18 77.177
ILS Functionality91 2 4 3 5 10 22 32 13 87.037
Print Functionality91 5 5 9 25 22 25 77.428
Electronic Functionality90 1 3 6 4 3 20 19 24 10 86.577
Company Satisfaction91 2 1 3 4 8 21 26 26 87.438
Support Satisfaction91 1 1 3 2 3 6 14 28 33 97.588
Support Improvement87 1 1 1 5 21 5 15 20 18 56.767
Company Loyalty90 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 12 23 32 97.198
Open Source Interest90 33 17 13 1 11 4 6 2 3 02.081

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 99.68%
Considering new Interface93 66.45%
System Installed on time?93 8692.47%

Average Collection size: 140836

TypeCount
Public65
Academic11
School12
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00011
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction69 1 1 2 2 6 8 16 13 20 97.107
ILS Functionality69 2 1 4 7 8 11 23 13 87.018
Print Functionality69 2 1 3 5 7 12 20 19 87.208
Electronic Functionality68 5 1 1 2 8 8 8 12 14 9 85.977
Company Satisfaction69 1 2 3 4 6 11 24 18 87.338
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 7 7 11 13 28 97.568
Support Improvement66 1 1 3 18 7 6 12 18 56.807
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 1 6 10 6 10 27 97.008
Open Source Interest67 32 1 7 6 2 13 2 2 2 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS70 1014.29%
Considering new Interface70 34.29%
System Installed on time?70 6998.57%

Average Collection size: 156324

TypeCount
Public53
Academic4
School7
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00014
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 2 1 5 1 5 8 17 34 33 87.388
ILS Functionality105 2 1 2 5 3 8 24 36 24 87.268
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction105 1 1 1 5 4 9 10 33 41 97.648
Support Satisfaction106 1 1 2 2 3 9 10 34 44 97.748
Support Improvement105 1 1 2 26 8 17 17 33 97.047
Company Loyalty106 10 4 2 4 5 9 13 13 46 96.778
Open Source Interest105 37 11 11 11 8 10 6 4 7 02.662

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS110 1412.73%
Considering new Interface110 65.45%
System Installed on time?110 10393.64%

Average Collection size: 162637

TypeCount
Public85
Academic10
School10
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction130 2 3 3 5 12 33 31 41 97.468
ILS Functionality128 3 4 9 11 31 46 24 87.328
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 1 2 10 11 24 34 46 97.578
Support Satisfaction130 2 4 3 8 11 20 34 48 97.528
Support Improvement129 3 2 3 8 22 9 21 24 37 96.837
Company Loyalty129 5 4 4 4 3 9 7 12 25 56 97.068
Open Source Interest128 37 11 20 12 10 11 10 8 2 7 02.952

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS132 2015.15%
Considering new Interface132 75.30%
System Installed on time?132 12796.21%

Average Collection size: 135321

TypeCount
Public100
Academic11
School8
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00070
[3] 100,001-250,00040
[4] 250,001-1,000,00014
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction103 1 7 6 6 7 21 31 24 87.098
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction102 1 4 1 4 9 4 21 29 29 87.238
Support Satisfaction103 2 2 2 7 2 11 18 19 40 97.328
Support Improvement100 4 1 5 3 4 24 10 11 22 16 56.136
Company Loyalty103 6 3 8 1 1 7 3 12 16 46 96.848
Open Source Interest102 34 9 15 10 3 14 4 4 1 8 02.772

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS105 1514.29%
Considering new Interface105 87.62%
System Installed on time?105 9388.57%

Average Collection size: 99085

TypeCount
Public80
Academic10
School10
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,0007
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction110 1 2 4 3 6 4 45 26 19 77.067
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction110 1 2 6 4 2 7 25 33 30 87.278
Support Satisfaction110 1 1 4 3 1 5 12 20 31 32 97.238
Support Improvement104 3 2 2 3 6 26 6 19 20 17 56.267
Company Loyalty109 4 3 6 1 1 12 4 15 22 41 96.948
Open Source Interest110 24 17 11 7 9 16 9 8 4 5 03.303

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS115 108.70%
Considering new Interface115 108.70%
System Installed on time?115 9784.35%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction30 3 2 4 6 7 8 97.208
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction30 2 5 1 3 11 8 87.338
Support Satisfaction29 1 2 1 3 8 8 6 77.077
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty30 1 1 4 2 3 5 14 97.508
Open Source Interest30 7 5 4 3 5 3 2 1 03.002

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS30 13.33%
Considering new Interface30 310.00%
System Installed on time?30 30100.00%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 4 4 15 12 8 77.167
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction66 1 1 6 6 3 16 18 15 87.058
Support Satisfaction66 1 1 1 2 2 8 4 16 15 16 76.927
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty65 2 3 2 2 1 5 6 7 20 17 86.778
Open Source Interest64 13 9 10 5 6 12 2 4 3 03.003

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS66 812.12%
Considering new Interface66 69.09%
System Installed on time?66 11.52%




2018 : gen: 6.68 company 6.65 loyalty 6.42 support 6.93

2017 : gen: 6.93 company 7.33 loyalty 6.67 support 7.54

2016 : gen: 7.16 company 7.44 loyalty 6.70 support 7.58

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.58 loyalty 6.92 support 7.66

2014 : gen: 7.17 company 7.43 loyalty 7.19 support 7.58

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.33 loyalty 7.00 support 7.56

2012 : gen: 7.38 company 7.64 loyalty 6.77 support 7.74

2011 : gen: 7.46 company 7.57 loyalty 7.06 support 7.52

2010 : gen: 7.09 company 7.23 loyalty 6.84 support 7.32

2009 : gen: 7.06 company 7.27 loyalty 6.94 support 7.23

2008 : gen: 7.20 company 7.33 loyalty 7.50 support 7.07

2007 : gen: 7.16 company 7.05 loyalty 6.77 support 6.92

Comments (survey2017)

Having TLC means not having to have a systems librarian. They hold our hands when we need it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

while we are very happy with TLC, change in management may at some point consider open-source. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

wish our ILS responded quicker to suggestions/changes that our libraries want implemented. I understand it's not easy to enact these changes,but oftentimes the suggestions/changes would effect our work in a positive way and provide for easier tasks. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The lack of catalog speed with KOHA is a drawback at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Although the ILS had many features that our old ILS did not, the new ILS is still lacking in some areas. We would have liked demos of all the products that gave us bids. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Due to high cost of TLC and budget constraints, we are migrating to the State of Pennsylvania unified system (SPARK). This is not yet public information. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We were considering moving to Verso, but we felt like it would have been a huge step backwards and so we are not looking at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

As part of a consortium which encompasses libraries of all types and sizes, we are often at the mercy of others in the system. We feel that our current ILS does not meet our library's needs but we are also committed to our consortium. We are hoping that when we put out an RFP this winter, we will find a system that better meets our needs at a cost the smaller libraries in our system can afford. We would like a (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

TLC is surpassing their usual excellent level of customer support in 2017. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Considering migrating to new ILS System due to increase in cost each year (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

E-books and E-audio: additional 24,494 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

I do not know if our most recent ILS implementation was on schedule. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The [...] will post an RFP in 2018 for a new ILS System and Discovery option. In our new library building, planned for completion in 2019, we will implement an automated storage and retrieval system and our ILS must interface with the system. Our current vendor doesn't offer that capability and doesn't have plans to develop an interface. We're close to full implementation of WorldCat Discovery, but haven't been satisfied with OCLC support in implementation and there are still parts of our collection that aren't discoverable. We will decide whether or not to keep WC Discovery or migrate to another system based on RFP responses and solutions offered. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We need to use the ILS better to manage our electronic resources. It does a great job with those that we are using with it, but we have made a number of changes recently and due to staffing shortages, have not yet "caught up" integrating our ILS and our eresources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been considering a move to OCLC because it helps us move to a larger user community that offers the possibility of providing the ILS using a SaaS model. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

TLC is too complex for us. We have recently lost our main TLC trained person to retirement and find it difficult with new personnel to get the information we feel we need. The two we are considering are more intuitive. Also, we can add branches to the ILS much affordably. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We changed last year from client server software to a hosted solution with TLS. The transition was very smooth. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We recently upgraded to the latest version of Library.Solution, 5.0 (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Library Corporation remains at the front of support and excellent customer service. In a day and age where it is simpler to offload customer service to a phone tree to manage the incoming calls, with The Library Corp, you always get a person on the phone when you call and that makes a big difference. And if the person can't answer the question right away then they will find someone who can. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I find that this ILS does an okay job, but after years with a better system I still experience a lot of frustration. For example, trying to run a report is fine if the the report you want to run is one they've already created, but if you want something specific, that they have yet to think of, then you're out of luck. I like being able to build my own searches and manipulating the data to do what I want. I'm also still waiting for the updated cataloging module, which was released in July but which I've heard nothing about. I think it boils down to this--there's a lot of rigidity to this ILS which is probably great for folks who don't have a lot of experience with an ILS, or a systems librarian, but which doesn't make me happy. Their customer service is amazing, but I am actively looking for a new ILS that give me the flexibility I need. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

This product is not particularly user-friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

I was disappointed in our ILS vendor's decision to move to a new cataloging program that adds time and steps to the cataloging process, is not RDA compliant, does not allow catalogers to edit in MARC, and forces you into consolidated authorities. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Incredible customer service. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been quite satisfied with TLC, our current ILS vendor for the 15 years we have worked with them. For a few years they have been moving everything away from client-based to web-based. The latest piece to make the transition is cataloging. Our cataloger is very proactive and lets her voice be heard and she has a very dim view of the new cataloging program. Generally we think it is time after 15 years to take a serious look at what is out there in the market. But this new cataloging program has tipped the scales. We will not be upgrading anymore (because we will end up getting the new program) and we are in a search mode for a new ILS. We lean heavily toward Koha-ByWater Solutions in part because it is open source but also because of the outstanding support from ByWater Solutions. Ten or even five years ago we would not have said this. We hope to have a new ILS in place early in 2019, i.e. in the FY18-19. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I'm a first-time director, so questions about how my perceptions of TLC changed from year to year, I don't know. I actually used TLC in the last two libraries I was in as well, so that worked out well for me. I'm pleased with TLC and see no reason to change it up at this point in time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are very satisfied with TLC (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have 21 years of experience as a school librarian, but this is only my second year at Bethlehem. I have used Follett most of my career. Using TLC Solutions at BASD the last two years have been very frustrating. It's not user friendly for cataloging or inventory purposes. The steps are too long to complete transactions, during a busy day. I prefer the ease and quick actions of Follett and I look forward to our conversion to Follett next year. Follett is also showcasing new online interfacing for the students. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

We would love the Discovery feature, but our budget has been cut. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The Cooperative moved to a hosted solution with TLC in September, keeping all of the same functionality. It was pretty seamless and all is working well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Considering jumping directly from ILS to Library Platform, instead of a separate discovery layer/system. Don't project making this move until fiscal 2019/20 ... at the earliest. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Customer support is simply out of this world. In fact, it is one of the main reasons we love TLC. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The company is overall very responsive to customer requests. The customer support group is usually pretty good, but sometimes I think they fail to completely read the support requests and either don't answer the question, or answer a question other than what has been asked so it may take a few iterations before they understand the real issue. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Great customer support, simple user interface, complicated back end. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our ILS does not really offer electronic resource management. What it does offer, we don't use, preferring our Discovery tool for the way our students work. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS