Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Polaris


2018 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction146 1 1 4 2 7 8 44 52 27 87.348
ILS Functionality145 2 1 2 2 6 11 40 58 23 87.348
Print Functionality142 4 2 3 5 21 75 32 87.668
Electronic Functionality142 6 4 3 2 8 12 26 33 32 16 76.307
Company Satisfaction143 3 4 3 7 5 18 23 32 31 17 76.327
Support Satisfaction143 1 5 2 2 10 11 18 30 34 30 86.787
Support Improvement139 6 2 4 5 15 47 17 12 16 15 55.535
Company Loyalty141 5 2 4 5 8 19 10 31 36 21 86.437
Open Source Interest142 34 22 21 12 15 16 8 3 4 7 02.852

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS151 1610.60%
Considering new Interface151 1711.26%
System Installed on time?151 14193.38%

Average Collection size: 546150

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00032
[4] 250,001-1,000,00035
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[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.

PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2637.25 107.80101517.20517.45197.533217.05
ILSFunctionality2617.34 107.60101497.40517.43197.113217.38
PrintFunctionality2637.71 107.90101517.69517.84197.793218.10
ElectronicFunctionality2576.44 106.40101486.55516.59196.052216.24
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2486.90 106.90101426.89496.98186.831216.86
CompanyLoyalty2556.60 106.80101476.63496.86187.393216.19



2017 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction263 1 4 1 7 14 31 73 87 45 87.258
ILS Functionality261 2 6 4 9 21 85 93 41 87.348
Print Functionality263 1 1 2 2 3 9 14 50 104 77 87.718
Electronic Functionality257 4 2 14 6 15 24 43 57 59 33 86.447
Company Satisfaction259 3 2 4 5 14 34 32 63 63 39 76.717
Support Satisfaction248 2 3 4 8 11 15 30 69 61 45 76.907
Support Improvement244 11 2 6 12 24 69 23 35 29 33 55.755
Company Loyalty255 9 5 3 7 20 23 29 47 54 58 96.607
Open Source Interest256 90 28 38 23 26 22 12 7 4 6 02.322

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS267 207.49%
Considering new Interface267 3011.24%
System Installed on time?267 24692.13%

Average Collection size: 418065

TypeCount
Public228
Academic11
School3
Consortium21
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00011
[2] 10,001-100,000119
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00051
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00030
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction216 1 3 3 2 6 29 60 69 43 87.358
ILS Functionality218 2 3 2 4 11 26 61 69 40 87.258
Print Functionality213 1 2 2 6 14 50 76 62 87.728
Electronic Functionality212 9 1 5 8 13 20 34 59 35 28 76.307
Company Satisfaction213 1 8 3 9 22 29 53 51 37 76.847
Support Satisfaction212 1 1 3 2 14 18 37 41 47 48 96.967
Support Improvement205 7 3 8 7 26 62 17 37 18 20 55.565
Company Loyalty213 8 1 5 17 22 22 40 51 47 86.757
Open Source Interest215 92 30 28 15 20 15 6 5 2 2 01.821

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS219 177.76%
Considering new Interface219 2310.50%
System Installed on time?219 20593.61%

Average Collection size: 453385

TypeCount
Public180
Academic17
School4
Consortium15
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 4 2 9 24 69 61 34 77.247
ILS Functionality207 1 2 4 1 13 22 50 82 32 87.308
Print Functionality207 3 1 1 3 1 10 8 36 94 50 87.578
Electronic Functionality206 3 3 4 15 7 31 35 52 33 23 76.237
Company Satisfaction206 1 2 3 7 7 29 34 43 54 26 86.677
Support Satisfaction204 2 3 5 13 25 27 30 56 43 86.907
Support Improvement195 7 3 11 18 20 58 13 27 18 20 55.335
Company Loyalty198 5 3 5 9 12 18 21 33 50 42 86.637
Open Source Interest204 82 27 27 16 17 15 9 4 1 6 02.041

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS215 177.91%
Considering new Interface215 2612.09%
System Installed on time?215 19791.63%

Average Collection size: 459670

TypeCount
Public184
Academic11
School0
Consortium18
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00097
[3] 100,001-250,00046
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00025
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction169 1 1 1 8 19 43 59 37 87.518
ILS Functionality169 1 1 1 1 1 6 20 46 59 33 87.408
Print Functionality167 3 1 1 1 5 9 33 64 50 87.668
Electronic Functionality164 5 3 7 12 22 34 34 33 14 66.206
Company Satisfaction168 1 1 1 6 9 25 46 44 35 77.237
Support Satisfaction165 1 4 4 6 2 14 41 49 44 87.368
Support Improvement161 4 3 5 7 20 48 16 22 20 16 55.645
Company Loyalty167 6 1 2 9 9 20 29 43 48 97.118
Open Source Interest161 63 22 16 13 16 14 6 8 2 1 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 95.29%
Considering new Interface170 169.41%
System Installed on time?170 16496.47%

Average Collection size: 570334

TypeCount
Public143
Academic10
School0
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00045
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction138 1 9 10 34 49 35 87.638
ILS Functionality138 3 6 12 36 51 30 87.548
Print Functionality136 2 2 2 8 7 19 52 44 87.658
Electronic Functionality136 3 3 3 6 8 19 22 22 36 14 86.287
Company Satisfaction136 1 1 11 7 27 46 43 87.708
Support Satisfaction137 3 2 11 9 30 41 41 87.548
Support Improvement135 1 1 4 2 32 15 22 27 31 56.837
Company Loyalty137 2 1 3 3 8 8 23 29 60 97.628
Open Source Interest134 60 18 20 8 5 13 3 5 2 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS143 10.70%
Considering new Interface143 1510.49%
System Installed on time?143 13292.31%

Average Collection size: 532870

TypeCount
Public118
Academic11
School1
Consortium11
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00018
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00016
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 2 4 8 29 64 45 87.878
ILS Functionality152 1 1 4 8 54 51 33 77.628
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction151 2 2 1 6 9 17 60 54 87.838
Support Satisfaction152 1 3 2 5 11 44 44 42 77.528
Support Improvement144 2 3 8 50 19 17 16 29 56.376
Company Loyalty152 1 1 2 14 3 21 24 86 97.979
Open Source Interest149 50 19 23 22 12 10 8 3 1 1 02.112

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 21.24%
Considering new Interface161 63.73%
System Installed on time?161 15093.17%

Average Collection size: 411671

TypeCount
Public140
Academic8
School1
Consortium9
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00043
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 4 1 3 3 19 37 35 87.778
ILS Functionality102 1 4 8 20 46 23 87.718
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 1 2 3 2 4 15 36 37 97.808
Support Satisfaction100 2 2 4 2 6 22 29 33 97.558
Support Improvement97 3 1 2 2 6 23 10 12 18 20 56.377
Company Loyalty100 1 2 2 2 2 2 9 28 52 97.959
Open Source Interest99 46 12 20 8 2 6 3 1 1 01.481

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS106 21.89%
Considering new Interface106 87.55%
System Installed on time?106 10195.28%

Average Collection size: 541249

TypeCount
Public91
Academic3
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,00022
[4] 250,001-1,000,00020
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 1 3 2 1 3 17 42 32 87.778
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 2 2 6 3 14 32 41 97.838
Support Satisfaction101 1 4 1 4 3 18 30 40 97.748
Support Improvement100 1 1 2 3 17 11 6 33 26 87.118
Company Loyalty100 1 1 1 2 4 6 8 25 52 97.929
Open Source Interest100 41 13 17 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 01.981

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 65.77%
Considering new Interface104 109.62%
System Installed on time?104 9995.19%

Average Collection size: 356804

TypeCount
Public92
Academic6
School0
Consortium6
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00033
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 2 1 1 13 52 21 87.798
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction92 1 1 1 4 4 6 48 27 87.808
Support Satisfaction91 2 1 2 1 1 17 45 22 87.688
Support Improvement87 3 1 1 3 13 12 8 29 17 86.838
Company Loyalty91 3 1 1 1 5 2 5 37 36 87.688
Open Source Interest90 27 21 13 2 6 10 4 3 3 1 02.281

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS92 66.52%
Considering new Interface92 66.52%
System Installed on time?92 8592.39%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction51 2 3 4 5 21 16 87.738
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction51 4 3 2 5 15 22 97.768
Support Satisfaction51 1 4 4 3 8 11 20 97.418
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty52 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 25 97.338
Open Source Interest51 15 13 6 3 2 7 1 1 3 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS53 59.43%
Considering new Interface53 35.66%
System Installed on time?53 4890.57%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction59 1 1 1 5 12 18 21 97.788
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction64 1 1 3 2 11 20 26 97.898
Support Satisfaction64 1 3 2 8 17 33 98.119
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty63 2 2 2 3 5 7 18 24 97.498
Open Source Interest62 20 11 11 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 02.272

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS64 11.56%
Considering new Interface64 23.13%
System Installed on time?64 11.56%




2018 : gen: 7.34 company 6.32 loyalty 6.43 support 6.78

2017 : gen: 7.25 company 6.71 loyalty 6.60 support 6.90

2016 : gen: 7.35 company 6.84 loyalty 6.75 support 6.96

2015 : gen: 7.24 company 6.67 loyalty 6.63 support 6.90

2014 : gen: 7.51 company 7.23 loyalty 7.11 support 7.36

2013 : gen: 7.63 company 7.70 loyalty 7.62 support 7.54

2012 : gen: 7.87 company 7.83 loyalty 7.97 support 7.52

2011 : gen: 7.77 company 7.80 loyalty 7.95 support 7.55

2010 : gen: 7.77 company 7.83 loyalty 7.92 support 7.74

2009 : gen: 7.79 company 7.80 loyalty 7.68 support 7.68

2008 : gen: 7.73 company 7.76 loyalty 7.33 support 7.41

2007 : gen: 7.78 company 7.89 loyalty 7.49 support 8.11

Comments (survey2017)

I never know who my sales person is as that changes quarterly it seems. Since the III takeover, Polaris customer service has suffered. It takes too long to get issues resolved. I will say that once I get a support person involved they are knowledgeable and efficient. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Polaris support team is great! Innovative charges for training webinars are outrageous for a small library. Documentation about Polaris has decreased since taken over by Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

III removed easy access to the Polaris portal. They focus upon Sierra and Millennium products. Only when I speak with a Polaris representative do I receive the most thorough information. The technology site manager is helpful to a degree, but usually staff can resolve concerns before asking her. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not deal directly with our ILS. The [...] so for its member libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Polaris customer support group is wonderful. The only reason I couldn't score it with the full marks (9) is because the move to the new ticketing interface has caused time lags with ticket resolution and hiccups in communication. This is expected with a move to a new (and not as good) ticketing system, so I'm sure those hiccups and time lags will disappear by this time next year. I do worry about staff retention. Many of the best Polaris customer support staff have left III for other opportunities or moved to a different department that doesn't interact with customers. One thing that Polaris did very VERY well before it was acquired by III is make each customer and (most) staff feel like they mattered. You could tell that Polaris valued their customer support staff and department, while III seems to think customer support staff are easily replaced and interchangeable. I am concerned about the loss of institutional and product knowledge that disappears as wonderful staff flee customer support. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Since being acquired by Innovative, product development and support for Polaris remains very strong. Administrative support has deteriorated significantly. Obtaining current product documentation, basic ILS user training and refresher training, obtaining quotes for new products, and accurate and timely invoicing is very challenging. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our biggest issue with Innovative Interfaces is pricing. The yearly increases have been about 6%, but recently they have redone other pricing. For instance a staging fee for setting up a PAC server was $300 in 2014. The quote I just got was for $600. They also want $700 for a 6 hour webinar. They have supposedly adjusted some other pricing down, but I haven't seen it. Customer Service wise, our Site Manager is phenomenal and my contact for new services is pretty great too. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The vendor has good customer service, but the cost of the ILS is very expensive. Its backend interface is also not intuitive. It works, but you need staff who are trained due to the high learning curve. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The relationship that we had with Polaris before it was purchased by Innovative Interfaces is gone. Ongoing late billing issues are pervasive. Lack of two way communication. Users Group Enhancement process appears to have been hijacked by Innovative and there is no feedback on the status of much needed enhancements. Innovative seems more interested in Revenue Retention. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There have been significant changes to the sales and contracting structure at Innovative. This has made purchasing new products and services cumbersome. In the long run, the changes might have benefits, but we're not seeing them yet. Support staff try to be helpful, but also seem to be overwhelmed. While ticket closure times had been improving, they seem to have slipped again over the past few months. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

As for acquiring Discovery Interface, the answer No is not reflective of the true answer, No Idea. As for going to Open Source, it was mentioned a few years back by this librarian and was soundly rejected. However, there has been some interest mentioned in the last year that it may now be a possibility; but can be considered unsubstantiated rumors. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Since being acquired by III prices have increased for some things but the level of service remains top-notch. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Many changes in company staff, always a concern as to who to contact with questions or concerns. Small customer no contact with the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We're just changing over to Polaris' Leap interface for circulation. We find it very easy to use, and staff has had little problem changing over to it. Unfortunately, Leap isn't ready for use by Tech Services, so that group still works from the traditional Polaris platform. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are by and large satisfied with Polaris, but we are exploring open source options because of the enormous cost savings. Working with an open source backend and a discovery layer frontend seems like an increasingly viable option. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not have direct control over the ILS - it is managed by the County Library as part of our local consortium. Many support issues are referred to the vendor. The system really isn't robust enough for our needs, particularly in large record set processing and reporting, but we do not have the resources to migrate to a stand-alone system. This mismatch between our needs and the system accounts for our rating its performance as lacking, where it might not in a public library setting. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

ILS providers need to employ more librarians as programmers (or more librarians need to become programmers) so that library priorities and needs can be better met by automation - like creating a temporary shelf location (for displays), that reverts back to the permanent location when an item is checked back in. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We moved to Polaris which is a good system for public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Still getting to know how Innovative will work with it's acquisition of Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Many of our issues are likely due to the Consortium Library that oversees the ILS and the parameters they set, not the ILS company itself. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been a bit frustrated by customer support since Polaris was merged into III. Previously we had a designated support contact and now we work with a general helpdesk, and we feel it is more difficult to get difficult problems resolved. On the whole, though, the system works quite well for us and we like it. We are not considering changing ILS anytime in the foreseeable future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

It would be difficult to implement because of staffing issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are not happy with POALRIS now that Innovative has purchased them. Innovative is awful! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are happy with our Polaris ILS and the direction that development is heading with it. We wish the authority file was more robust and better implemented into the catalog, however (e.g.: public users have no access to cross-references in the authority file!). Re the questions evaluating customer support: In general, we are very satisfied with Innovative's *technical* support of our Polaris ILS and would rank this higher (9 on each of the customer support questions) if that was the sole factor. We are dissatisfied with their general customer relations--the areas responding to questions about billing, training programs, etc. We feel that much was lost in regards to customer relations when Innovative purchased Polaris and moved customer relations to the Innovative headquarters. Our questions will go unanswered until follow-up messages are sent; emailed communications are curt; etc. Overall, though, we are satisfied with the product at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I find Innovative to be extremely responsive and their support is always top notch. We really like Polaris. We aren't able to afford the additional services (like Discovery) that are offered at this time. The third party software is probably our biggest challenge with III, as everything adds to the cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris is so much better that our old system but there are several aspects of it that are clumsy and time consuming for staff to use and it doesn't seem to change even though problems are brought up repeatedly to the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris gets the job done for the most part, but it is extremely clunky and not user-friendly. The interface is also extremely outdated looking - it looks like something from the 1990s! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Ever since it was acquired by III, customer service for Polaris has gotten worse. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris is a great, stable, fairly trouble-free product that I have never regretted purchasing. We never had any issues with Polaris until Innovative bought them. Polaris' technology support is still fantastic, but their sales and customer representative support has failed in the past year. We repeatedly have to request information on pricing and information for new products as our rep almost never follows through, and we weren't able to get firm information on pricing for LEAP, server hosting, or their new bundled pricing model. Also, one of the things that made Polaris valuable to us was that when you purchased their ILS, you received the whole product and weren't required to purchase things piecemeal. Now it feels that every new thing is a separate charge and no one can tell you what that charge is or it's so outrageous, you pass it up. We are not considering a change in our ILS at this time, but if Polaris continues down the path of unaffordability and poor response, we most likely will look at Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

As a member of a system I do not have much say in what system we use. I have one vote out of 34. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have found Polaris support to be stellar. We've always received that day help by knowledgeable staff. The product can be a bit creaky but is still very serviceable and we are very much looking forward to the continued development of LEAP. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in a mixed type library system, with primarily public and school libraries. While the catalog is not especially friendly for academic libraries, our alternatives are slim at present. We are not desirous of operating our own system as a standalone, and the academic consortium in the state is in the process of migration. We hope to be able to consider that consortium when its migration is complete, but we are likely to be where we are until at least 2021. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We continue to find the product and the technical support from Innovative for the Polaris ILS to be reliable and responsive. The customer support for business operations--quotes, invoicing, billing--is in a state of disarray. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Members of their financial department all need to be on the same page as each person has a different answer to the same question. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are an all-digital library, so cannot truly evaluate the vendor/product for print items. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We were very happy with Polaris' service following implementation but have seen changes in responsiveness since the ILS was acquired by III. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Innovative is still going through the growing pains of recent acquisitions and support still suffers. Supporting and developing multiple products is difficult and we are certainly seeing that development is slow. No effort to bring back PCI-DSS and cash drawer management. Only recently addressing responsive design in the catalog. No interest in addressing ADA in the PAC. We still feel that we have lost more than we gained in purchasing Polaris. I haven't seen the customer service that they were famous for. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are a branch library in a larger consortium, with many sub-collections and services that differ from branch to branch. As such, when looking at other ILS products, it is very difficult to ascertain how well the ILS product supports differing levels of services and collections among the constituent branches. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I feel Polaris is still experiencing growing pains since its purchase by III. While the customer service from Polaris staff is still good, I can't help but feel a company trying to maintain 4 different ILS systems cannot maintain all systems on equal footing. The accounting department still leaves a lot to be desired and trying to make changes on one's maintenance account takes weeks instead of the day or two that it should. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We don't deal directly with the vendor, so most of the above questions are guesses as they don't apply. We send ALL of our questions to the Illinois Heartland Library System. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris Library Systems, from whom we purchased our ILS, we rate 9. Innovative, who is our current vendor, we rate 3. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Since Polaris was purchased by iii the customer support has been going downhill. The responses as well as the response time doesn't seem to be a focus. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We experienced a major crisis this past year with our ILS (our server was hit with ransomware). We were very impressed with the software engineer team (several who abbreviated their 4th of July holiday to help us out). Most of these folks were originally from Polaris. However, from a general support area, we've seen a fair decline in response time and we've been totally unimpressed with the attitude of leadership. Overall, it would seem that Polaris has been swallowed up and will continue to be minimized in years to come. Very sad to see as a long-time customer of the product that we know and love. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I can't answer if support has gotten better or worse as we are in the first year with this ILS (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Currently transitioning to Polaris LEAP. Interesting to note that processing features integral to technical service operations were not implemented and we still rely on the original Polaris product for these services. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're overall very happy with Polaris and the support we receive from them. Response times for support tickets we've submitted has noticeably improved within the last year. One area we're not quite as happy with is that since Polaris was acquired by Innovative Interfaces, most/all of their online training sessions that were once free are now at-cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We find overall that Polaris provides a better product and better customer service than SIRSIDynix. We were a SIRSIDynix library for ~10 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I do not work directlywith nor have any input into the ILS system. It is all managed centrally. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We've had several issues with year with the ILS and on at least one occasion a big problem was pushed was taken very lightly by the vendor. They only put one support person on the case and that person was not very knowledgeable. We would not consider open source as it lacks support from a vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

WE are pleased with the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I would like deeplinks to be easier to create and share from the PAC. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris: Terrific and stable product with very, very few bugs in production. Odd product decision to charge additional fees for its API (Sierra, competing product from same parent company, offers its API free-of-charge). LEAP: Web-based interface version of staff client. New; still fairly beta, but functional. Automatic receipt (and simultaneous "normal") printing difficult due to product's environment (web browser). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I feel like Polaris is constantly playing catch-up with trends. Additionally, when we transitioned to RFID, I didn't feel very supported by Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are highly pleased with the support we get from Polaris (iii) and with the functionality of Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We went live with Leap, Polaris' browser based circulation interface. We have been very happy with that decision and would recommend other public libraries do the same if they choose Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I find since the acquisition; Polaris to Innovative, customer service is not as prompt. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The total ILS is a mashup of the ILS (Polaris) and a bit of several integrated systems like POS system, Print release and Discovery systems from various vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of a consortium and do not directly interact with ILS company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a school library, Polaris does not work for our unique needs. It is impossible to neatly print a set of overdue notices, as everything is meant to be done online. It is also impossible to easily group students together into cohorts. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Overall very satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

the comments above all pertain to ILS vendor and not the consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS is totally managed by our Coop. We locally really have no control, but are satisfied with it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Polaris software updates seem to be releasing with more bugs than in the past. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Polaris' public catalog is severely lacking in usability. Spell check brings up words not in the catalog, which is a minor and annoying problem. Worse is the ability to find a DVD title among the rather large results set you get back. Maybe it is the way my consortium as set up the initial search page but the landing page only allows a keyword and format search. Finding what you want from the initial result set is next to impossible. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

All tech help provided by our library system. I have had zero contact with anyone at Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative is not customer focused like Polaris was prior to the acquisition. Innovative does not realize that libraries have limited budgets and also the response time on getting quotes for anything has become terrible. Our direct support "site manager" is very good and attentive. None of my comments are reflective of the site managers. All of our issues are with the new corporate culture. We are now customers and just another account number, we are no longer partners. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

ILS