Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony

2022 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	303	3	9	11	3	15	15	26	97	87	37	7	6.73	7
ILS Functionality	304	2	4	6	6	15	17	41	95	77	41	7	6.83	7
Print Functionality	302	2	3	3	5	5	15	20	76	109	64	8	7.35	8
Electronic Functionality	300	17	11	12	15	19	38	45	63	42	38	7	5.78	6
Company Satisfaction	299	4	3	5	9	13	18	26	76	85	60	8	6.99	7
Support Satisfaction	303	6	2	3	5	7	13	19	68	87	93	9	7.39	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	298	24	10	4	6	7	23	18	62	74	70	8	6.52	7
Open Source Interest	283	71	23	23	28	12	43	21	24	19	13	0	3.67	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	319	66	20.69%
Considering new Interface	319	15	4.70%
System Installed on time?	319	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		721638

Type	Count
Public	190
Academic	56
School	1
Consortium	24
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	7
[2] 10,001-100,000	105
[3] 100,001-250,000	73
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	65
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	40
[6] over 10,000,001	3

2021 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	332	5	1	6	3	12	19	34	109	91	52	7	7.01	7
ILS Functionality	333	2		6	5	12	27	31	103	102	45	7	7.02	7
Print Functionality	329	1	2	1	3	8	16	24	74	123	77	8	7.49	8
Electronic Functionality	329	20	4	9	17	14	45	51	71	62	36	7	6.01	7
Company Satisfaction	327	4	2	6	7	11	21	19	85	112	60	8	7.12	8
Support Satisfaction	326	3	2	3	5	7	18	17	56	112	103	8	7.54	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	330	11	2	8	9	11	29	23	58	103	76	8	6.93	8
Open Source Interest	290	80	27	25	24	22	42	14	23	21	7	0	3.36	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	342	53	15.50%
Considering new Interface	342	15	4.39%
System Installed on time?	342	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		2283406

Type	Count
Public	191
Academic	47
School	3
Consortium	24
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	9
[2] 10,001-100,000	109
[3] 100,001-250,000	72
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	78
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	43
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2020 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	321	2	2	7	5	10	22	35	98	96	44	7	6.98	7
ILS Functionality	322		1	2	13	7	18	48	82	112	39	8	7.05	7
Print Functionality	318	1		3	5	7	13	28	69	112	80	8	7.49	8
Electronic Functionality	308	8	9	12	21	17	44	51	72	44	30	7	5.90	6
Company Satisfaction	317		2	7	6	12	16	30	83	100	61	8	7.17	8
Support Satisfaction	314		1	5	6	5	14	22	51	107	103	8	7.61	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	316	8	4	7	10	8	24	22	70	77	86	9	7.00	8
Open Source Interest	285	85	22	39	22	14	31	16	16	18	16	0	3.27	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	331	57	17.22%
Considering new Interface	331	16	4.83%
System Installed on time?	331	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		860340

Type	Count
Public	193
Academic	79
School	9
Consortium	24
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	8
[2] 10,001-100,000	108
[3] 100,001-250,000	70
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	73
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	42
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2019 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	439	5	11	8	9	16	33	67	115	122	53	8	6.70	7
ILS Functionality	436	4	10	3	11	21	27	69	118	126	47	8	6.74	7
Print Functionality	433	5	6	3	9	17	23	43	92	163	72	8	7.10	8
Electronic Functionality	426	18	17	22	16	40	48	59	95	74	37	7	5.76	6
Company Satisfaction	434	7	10	5	14	21	27	54	97	131	68	8	6.78	7
Support Satisfaction	423	5	3	7	9	16	30	36	71	130	116	8	7.22	8
Support Improvement	422	6	5	3	8	43	108	56	58	64	71	5	6.26	6
Company Loyalty	429	23	13	10	16	22	32	42	72	97	102	9	6.48	7
Open Source Interest	429	132	46	48	28	56	40	23	18	20	18	0	2.88	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	443	75	16.93%
Considering new Interface	443	51	11.51%
System Installed on time?	443	404	91.20%

Average Collection size:		674873

Type	Count
Public	258
Academic	112
School	12
Consortium	28
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	19
[2] 10,001-100,000	148
[3] 100,001-250,000	84
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	100
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	60
[6] over 10,000,001	4

2018 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	473	5	4	5	15	18	34	65	157	118	52	7	6.77	7
ILS Functionality	471	3	5	7	16	16	46	76	125	122	55	7	6.72	7
Print Functionality	471	8	4	8	6	10	28	51	104	162	90	8	7.13	8
Electronic Functionality	460	22	16	25	23	38	50	79	108	58	41	7	5.65	6
Company Satisfaction	468	4	6	11	15	18	33	56	137	120	68	7	6.79	7
Support Satisfaction	462	2	7	13	8	19	34	39	103	122	115	8	7.08	8
Support Improvement	448	9	1	11	14	37	137	49	52	66	72	5	6.10	6
Company Loyalty	459	18	9	20	17	27	41	47	95	88	97	9	6.40	7
Open Source Interest	460	158	56	58	23	43	43	31	24	5	19	0	2.59	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	481	89	18.50%
Considering new Interface	481	45	9.36%
System Installed on time?	481	435	90.44%

Average Collection size:		552666

Type	Count
Public	283
Academic	122
School	13
Consortium	25
Special	8

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	14
[2] 10,001-100,000	173
[3] 100,001-250,000	104
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	108
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	53
[6] over 10,000,001	2

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2017 results according to the type and size of the library.

Symphony	all		Academic						Public						School		Consortium
			small		medium		large		small		medium		large
	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg
SatisfactionLevelILS	531	6.69	74	6.08	48	6.40	15	6.27	194	6.78	77	7.03	21	7.14	16	7.63	32	7.16
ILSFunctionality	531	6.64	74	6.16	48	6.35	15	6.00	194	6.81	77	6.77	21	6.81	16	7.56	32	7.09
PrintFunctionality	523	7.14	74	7.05	48	7.17	14	7.50	189	6.95	77	7.22	21	7.38	16	7.94	32	7.88
ElectronicFunctionality	525	5.61	73	4.81	48	4.81	15	4.67	191	5.84	76	5.96	21	6.10	16	7.00	32	6.63
SatisfactionCustomerSupport	518	7.11	73	6.67	47	7.13	12	6.83	186	6.97	77	7.44	21	8.00	16	7.88	32	7.94
CompanyLoyalty	516	6.34	73	5.52	47	6.23	14	5.21	188	6.54	73	6.58	21	7.71	14	7.64	32	7.06

2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	531	5	5	13	14	23	39	89	154	122	67	7	6.69	7
ILS Functionality	531	1	7	15	13	24	45	92	150	130	54	7	6.64	7
Print Functionality	523	4	3	12	8	15	30	54	124	177	96	8	7.14	8
Electronic Functionality	525	14	21	34	30	41	76	87	109	78	35	7	5.61	6
Company Satisfaction	523	4	8	10	13	24	54	73	116	133	88	8	6.77	7
Support Satisfaction	518	3	7	6	16	17	38	53	100	160	118	8	7.11	8
Support Improvement	512	5	1	9	8	45	137	61	83	89	74	5	6.31	6
Company Loyalty	516	31	5	23	13	25	51	56	107	103	102	7	6.34	7
Open Source Interest	517	160	69	65	33	68	51	27	21	7	16	0	2.58	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	536	106	19.78%
Considering new Interface	536	51	9.51%
System Installed on time?	536	485	90.49%

Average Collection size:		633322

Type	Count
Public	301
Academic	141
School	16
Consortium	32
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	23
[2] 10,001-100,000	179
[3] 100,001-250,000	116
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	122
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	66
[6] over 10,000,001	3

2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	431	3	4	10	12	17	31	58	126	117	53	7	6.79	7
ILS Functionality	431	2	2	9	13	21	31	54	132	111	56	7	6.82	7
Print Functionality	426	6	1	4	8	11	17	31	104	153	91	8	7.32	8
Electronic Functionality	422	16	12	24	22	38	45	78	80	73	34	7	5.74	6
Company Satisfaction	427	6	4	11	10	21	32	49	110	111	73	8	6.81	7
Support Satisfaction	418	4	4	5	10	17	29	44	91	111	103	8	7.11	8
Support Improvement	410	5	4	5	8	44	101	53	50	67	73	5	6.29	6
Company Loyalty	425	17	11	7	11	16	46	41	84	90	102	9	6.64	7
Open Source Interest	418	140	57	54	32	46	38	20	11	6	14	0	2.41	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	436	81	18.58%
Considering new Interface	436	49	11.24%
System Installed on time?	436	402	92.20%

Average Collection size:		2753248

Type	Count
Public	235
Academic	132
School	14
Consortium	25
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	16
[2] 10,001-100,000	151
[3] 100,001-250,000	91
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	96
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	59
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	437	5	6	12	8	20	37	58	131	113	47	7	6.66	7
ILS Functionality	436		8	15	12	18	41	54	132	116	40	7	6.62	7
Print Functionality	437	4	5	4	5	17	22	36	123	144	77	8	7.16	8
Electronic Functionality	432	12	20	23	27	35	62	61	89	69	34	7	5.66	6
Company Satisfaction	432	5	9	13	15	18	30	51	109	119	63	8	6.69	7
Support Satisfaction	427	5	4	14	12	15	33	36	101	123	84	8	6.92	7
Support Improvement	420	8	7	3	5	46	108	42	71	69	61	5	6.20	6
Company Loyalty	433	23	14	10	9	23	44	49	84	97	80	8	6.35	7
Open Source Interest	426	153	61	59	27	40	37	15	15	5	14	0	2.27	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	460	82	17.83%
Considering new Interface	460	47	10.22%
System Installed on time?	460	402	87.39%

Average Collection size:		653631

Type	Count
Public	256
Academic	116
School	22
Consortium	27
Special	3

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	21
[2] 10,001-100,000	168
[3] 100,001-250,000	91
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	98
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	51
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	354	1	4	9	16	14	29	55	124	76	26	7	6.53	7
ILS Functionality	355	1	2	11	13	16	29	66	104	85	28	7	6.56	7
Print Functionality	351	3	2	4	4	11	13	43	81	125	65	8	7.24	8
Electronic Functionality	347	10	19	28	34	17	45	63	72	41	18	7	5.31	6
Company Satisfaction	352		9	12	17	19	26	57	98	80	34	7	6.43	7
Support Satisfaction	348	2	4	7	11	13	29	50	86	89	57	8	6.82	7
Support Improvement	339	2	3	2	9	38	96	29	49	53	58	5	6.28	6
Company Loyalty	343	13	12	13	17	22	38	43	56	68	61	8	6.15	7
Open Source Interest	346	108	61	49	26	31	25	18	6	8	14	0	2.39	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	361	76	21.05%
Considering new Interface	361	52	14.40%
System Installed on time?	361	322	89.20%

Average Collection size:		707313

Type	Count
Public	182
Academic	111
School	7
Consortium	19
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	14
[2] 10,001-100,000	118
[3] 100,001-250,000	81
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	75
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	49
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	315	3	3	8	14	18	23	36	99	74	37	7	6.61	7
ILS Functionality	314	2	2	7	20	10	20	52	88	72	41	7	6.65	7
Print Functionality	314	3	1	3	4	9	20	35	76	99	64	8	7.21	8
Electronic Functionality	307	7	17	21	29	24	46	52	50	36	25	6	5.36	6
Company Satisfaction	313	4	9	10	16	14	17	43	81	77	42	7	6.51	7
Support Satisfaction	312	4	3	6	8	16	26	28	77	79	65	8	6.91	7
Support Improvement	307	4	2	7	5	17	83	23	57	50	59	5	6.46	7
Company Loyalty	312	21	8	10	9	17	41	26	56	61	63	9	6.19	7
Open Source Interest	304	90	34	49	22	27	40	13	13	7	9	0	2.67	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	324	66	20.37%
Considering new Interface	324	58	17.90%
System Installed on time?	324	292	90.12%

Average Collection size:		835498

Type	Count
Public	139
Academic	87
School	29
Consortium	26
Special	3

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	24
[2] 10,001-100,000	80
[3] 100,001-250,000	64
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	67
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	41
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	380	2	2	10	19	25	48	50	122	72	30	7	6.37	7
ILS Functionality	380	1	1	5	24	24	41	47	114	94	29	7	6.52	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	378	1	6	14	26	22	43	65	98	71	32	7	6.21	7
Support Satisfaction	378	1	5	11	14	35	44	36	102	80	50	7	6.48	7
Support Improvement	371	3	3	6	16	26	99	45	55	69	49	5	6.23	6
Company Loyalty	376	30	11	22	18	25	48	33	76	54	59	7	5.70	7
Open Source Interest	374	97	44	47	35	35	42	28	19	13	14	0	3.01	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	393	79	20.10%
Considering new Interface	393	76	19.34%
System Installed on time?	393	348	88.55%

Average Collection size:		644460

Type	Count
Public	206
Academic	114
School	4
Consortium	21
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	17
[2] 10,001-100,000	125
[3] 100,001-250,000	93
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	80
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	54
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	326	5	6	9	11	21	37	61	102	57	17	7	6.18	7
ILS Functionality	320	1	2	7	18	18	30	63	93	69	19	7	6.39	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	326	6	7	19	20	24	35	58	83	53	21	7	5.88	6
Support Satisfaction	324	4	10	11	14	18	44	54	72	68	29	7	6.17	7
Support Improvement	323	5	10	10	12	28	81	37	60	48	32	5	5.87	6
Company Loyalty	323	23	16	16	13	31	44	40	54	55	31	8	5.47	6
Open Source Interest	318	63	32	48	21	34	45	18	27	12	18	0	3.48	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	333	76	22.82%
Considering new Interface	333	88	26.43%
System Installed on time?	333	303	90.99%

Average Collection size:		570393

Type	Count
Public	151
Academic	116
School	4
Consortium	15
Special	10

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	10
[2] 10,001-100,000	98
[3] 100,001-250,000	77
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	84
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	40
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	271	3	5	9	12	19	37	41	77	50	18	7	6.15	7
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	271	8	8	17	11	26	37	54	57	39	14	7	5.63	6
Support Satisfaction	269	8	7	15	20	23	32	50	56	39	19	7	5.67	6
Support Improvement	271	11	7	16	28	21	87	26	26	26	23	5	5.15	5
Company Loyalty	270	18	15	10	24	29	34	40	40	32	28	6	5.26	6
Open Source Interest	269	64	26	30	17	19	31	29	19	14	20	0	3.59	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	282	57	20.21%
Considering new Interface	282	81	28.72%
System Installed on time?	282	242	85.82%

Average Collection size:		580366

Type	Count
Public	142
Academic	88
School	4
Consortium	15
Special	10

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	5
[2] 10,001-100,000	85
[3] 100,001-250,000	51
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	54
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	28
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	304	3	5	6	9	16	62	56	96	44	7	7	6.06	6
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	303	5	9	27	23	22	56	48	79	29	5	7	5.34	6
Support Satisfaction	303	3	12	30	23	17	54	45	66	41	12	7	5.44	6
Support Improvement	292	7	11	19	29	23	89	35	39	30	10	5	5.09	5
Company Loyalty	301	32	14	12	14	23	67	31	49	43	16	5	5.06	5
Open Source Interest	300	53	34	26	25	30	40	25	20	23	24	0	3.90	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	310	49	15.81%
Considering new Interface	310	85	27.42%
System Installed on time?	310	261	84.19%

2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	233	4	7	11	19	16	35	37	64	32	8	7	5.68	6
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	234	9	9	16	31	28	23	43	43	26	6	6	5.05	6
Support Satisfaction	233	12	14	23	18	21	36	39	38	23	9	6	4.91	5
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	233	21	13	19	18	17	36	20	43	34	12	7	4.95	5
Open Source Interest	231	36	23	21	24	17	37	12	23	16	22	5	4.11	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	234	54	23.08%
Considering new Interface	234	69	29.49%
System Installed on time?	234	214	91.45%

2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	200	4	1	5	10	6	23	29	64	43	15	7	6.41	7
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	284	5	8	20	23	27	43	47	61	38	12	7	5.50	6
Support Satisfaction	282	6	10	13	27	37	33	42	64	34	16	7	5.48	6
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	279	25	10	12	9	16	59	31	42	36	39	5	5.52	6
Open Source Interest	281	54	41	36	32	17	36	21	14	9	21	0	3.35	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	288	42	14.58%
Considering new Interface	288	60	20.83%
System Installed on time?	288	1	0.35%

2022 : gen: 6.73 company 6.99 loyalty 6.52 support 7.39

2021 : gen: 7.01 company 7.12 loyalty 6.93 support 7.54

2020 : gen: 6.98 company 7.17 loyalty 7.00 support 7.61

2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.78 loyalty 6.48 support 7.22

2018 : gen: 6.77 company 6.79 loyalty 6.40 support 7.08

2017 : gen: 6.69 company 6.77 loyalty 6.34 support 7.11

2016 : gen: 6.79 company 6.81 loyalty 6.64 support 7.11

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48

Comments (survey2017)

We just migrated to the SirsiDynix Symphony LSP from an OpenSource system. If we wanted to continue with an OpenSource solution, we needed to be prepared to enter into a deep conversation on how the ILS software should to be shaped to support our future. This is an honorable conversation. As a consortium, we felt that the ongoing conversation about software was a distraction. The five year long conversation we had been having about OpenSource software had not, in the end, helped to bring the libraries in our consortium to the center of our communities. As public librarians, we decided should be striving for conversations that helped us to engage intentionally and meaningfully with our communities. We decided to focus our attention and conversations on activities that shaped our libraries as platforms for educational, economic, and civic opportunities. In short, we found a vendor who was doing an extraordinary job on focusing on a vision for their software that was compatible with our mission. This will allow us to focus on the future of library service in our communities. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently satisfied with our current system but have a draft tender ready to go pending release of funds to cover costs to satisfy procurement requirements of the University. This tender would unifiy a number of systems potentially. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have used Sirsi since 1989. We have continued because they have expanded to meet changing demands of service and customer requests (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sirsi has really dropped the ball on many fronts. Their analytics package was a dud. Technical issues forced us to move to a front end using EDS instead of Enterprise. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

The current catalogue doesn't provide the facets and other search features users expect now. Development is focused on SirsiDynix's (for purchase) Enterprise discovery layer rather than the delivered BLUECloud PAC. This leaves customers with a choice to purchase more software to act as a catalogue or remain with an out of date catalogue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

"Number of items" includes electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sirsi Symphony is stable and well understood by our employees. [...] is evaluating ILS / LSP for implementation as our Sirsi contract expires June 2019. Alma and Sirsi's hosted Symphony / BLUEcloud products are being considered. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

As a technical services librarian I find frustration with the authority structure of the database that is offered through Symphony. I think that some of these database services should be offered as a basic opening day package and not as add on services requiring extra monies for enhancement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix webcat has not been updated significantly since 1998. We will be migrating as soon as our consortium picks another vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Due to lack of funding, the ILS version has been stuck for the last 4 years, This situation will improve over the next year as we finally receive the funding support to upgrade to an SaaS platform that will run up to date versions of the software. This will include, though they are hardly finished products, SD's Enterprise catalog, and BlueCloud services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We work with the [...] in a cooperative effort to share services, including our ILS, with many small sized and rural libraries. [...] researches and contracts for the ILS and also provides support to member libraries. Without [...] , it would be very difficult for a library of our size to maintain and correctly utilize the services available through our ILS system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix often releases new products about 2 years prior before it's ready for production. I have seen this even within the past 5 years with their products such as Mobilecirc, Social Library (which they gave up on), and BookMyne. It takes them years to sometimes fix some issues, for example, making the online catalog mobile friendly, having people's checkout history sortable by author, instead of fixing the bug immediately they took away the functionality until a future release. So that now patrons can only sort by title. Overall, SirsiDynix is moving in the right direction, however they are very slow in their development of products that dont have a lot of bugs..... (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am very pleased with the aggressive way SirsiDynix has moved forward with new and exciting products to make our ILS so much more valuable to both staff and the customer with mobile apps, using tablets to check out even with RFID, really cool and easy inventory capability with tablets, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We don't use all the bells and whistles that SirsiDynix has. Originally, we went with this company because they could create a union catalog that would support almost 100 schools. In the 1990's they were one of the few who could handle this. So as a school district we got in at the ground floor. If I had to purchase today I'm not sure we could afford sirsi. We purchase the sure sailing which gives us consulting time to help with customization of our system. We don't have programmers that work for our library system, so all customizing and support come from Sirsi. They know our budget constraints and try to work with us on costs. We have a team assigned to us from sirsi and I like that I have the same folks to work with. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Symphony is still a relatively new product and lacks the integration and navigational capacities of our legacy ILS. SirsiDynix is currently migrating most of its products to a web platform which is promising, but development takes time to catch up with all the features that we need to operate. That being said, I am hopeful that the system will improve in the future. We are not pleased with some of the workarounds we've had to implement in order to make the system work to our expectations. We've had to purchase some drop-in products to accommodate our electronic resources and make them more readily accessible. I am not fond of Enterprise as a discovery product but I like the other ones even less. I think if we could afford to hire a staff or company to manage an open-source system, we would go that route. The sales and support staff have been excellent though. We chose SD because it represented a significant savings in ILS licensing fees but I think we actually got what we paid for. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Make it so MP3 audiobooks can be found as fiction or non-fiction. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

All [...] are in the process of moving to Alma. Future plans are for a shared universal catalog, and possible integration with the [...] of Georgia's universal catalog and universal borrowing system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Very responsive and friendly company. New product development is a bit slow though (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of a consortium so we have no direct contact with the vendor and know nothing about the service they provide. We are only one vote among many when it comes to decisions about the automation system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We get our ILS through our consortium, [...] , and [...] provides all technical support and other support for the system. [...] is excellent at what they do 10/10 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am very appreciative of our consortium. If it were not for our consortium, we would not have an ILS, and would also struggle with an Open Source ILS due to our IT infrastructure and lack of staff to support it. This year's survey reflects upon the loss of crucial statewide funding that was previously used for our ILS, additional staff at the consortium level to support all the libraries on this same ILS, and also included the Discovery component. Now we're faced with the having the ILS with reduced capabilities, not enough staff to support the demand, and the removal of the discovery component. The vendor we used has been very generously supportive of us by working with us and our statewide financial situation. One last thing...we have migrated from Symphony to Enterprise and are now on SaaS. I am not pleased with the inability to see the changes we make on our cataloging end (for example, when updating the links in the 856 field, we have to wait several hours or 24 hours to see the changes take effect.) It was much easier for us to do our work when we could see the changes take effect immediately when our ILS was on an in-house server. This delayed piece is the biggest drawback of the product in my humble opinion, based on our hospital library's workflow. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix seem to be very slow at releasing their new products - particularly for consortiums. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I have experienced some high pressure sales tactics over the past few years. Purchase deadlines and threats of price increases are some of the specific measures used. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're happy with the products, services and support of our current vendor. However, we're significantly concerned about the steady increase in the price we pay for these. We are starting to consider other vendors for budgetary reasons. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

our ILS doesn't meet our needs as well as it once did, but not because it's a bad system. As a corporate special library, we have evolved into a "Knowledge Center" with mainly electronic resources and no longer need many of the features available. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

This library is with a consortium. We are able to have a ILS because of the discounts we get by being a member. I have never used another ILS system so I cant give a educated answer to these questions due to having never used anything else. I might should have left the answers blank. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Do you plan to collect stats on AV items, print subscriptions, Licensed databases, ejournals, ebooks, and streamed products? I just gave the count for 'books and other print material catalogued as books'. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Number of items in the library's collection includes physical, electronic and DDA e-titles matched against subject profiles and included in catalogue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have selected a new vendor and will switch in 2018 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

The [...] libraries will be migrating Summer 2018 to Ex Libris, Alma/Primo. The [...] libraries migrated in 2017. Our ultimate goal is to have a seamless library system-both through automation and procedures to provide shared services and resources throughout the state for our students. Currently the [...] libraries have four different ILS. Already the initial process to prepare to migrate to one system is increasing communication and cooperation among our college libraries. We are not super impressed with Ex Libris customer service yet, but hopefully all will go smoothly. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Sirsi Symphony is a solid ILS, and we appreciate the flexibility that the Sirsi API give us to create our own applications. We would like to see more support for electronic resources, and we are hopeful that BlueCloud Acquisitions will provide this functionality when it is released. Another area that requires more support is short term loans, including management of patron notifications. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

With dwindling commitment to book purchasing and ebook purchasing and a planned deselection initiative to reduce book holdings to about 125,000 items, it makes less sense to invest huge dollars into an ILS and more sense to invest in discovery systems that manage all resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The [...] services 75+ school libraries. This software serves our purposes and needs very well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our number of items has gone down dramatically, because we changed ebook providers and at this point, the old records have been taken out but the new records aren't in yet. We're extremely happy with our current ILS, but that is mostly due to the outstanding service from the system managers at the consortium level. We're much more wedded to them than to any given product, but the larger the consortium becomes, the harder it gets to change platforms. Middle responses were chosen for vendor support items, because we almost never work directly with the vendor for support. We're planning on implementing ECM and hope that the system works better for electronic resources at that point. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Currently reviewing Discovery products to see if we should change products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We only converted to this system in May of this year, so we are still in the process of learning everything it can do. Change is hard, but I believe this system is far better than the open source system we converted from. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The support provided has been really strong. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The customer service from SirsiDynix is excellent, very responsive and personable. The reports are clunky in Symphony and you must pay to develop anything other than standard; in other systems you can more freely create a new report. It is pricey and the main reason that my satisfaction rating is never at the highest level. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

None (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

SirsiDynix seems to be growing rapidly and at times seems to be suffering minor growing pains. We have had a couple of interactions in recent months in which the support rep seemed new to the job or new to the product in question. Overall, they are bending over backward to make customers happy, as much as is feasible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

- (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The acquisition of our current ils was a consortium wide decision over which we had almost no control as a stand alone library. For the most part we are satisfied with this product, but it could be a lot better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Vendor seems stuck in delays in releasing new HTML5 staff client modules (circ, acquisitions) with necessary features. Current Java-based client is very antiquated. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

An open source solution is not possible for this library as there is no in house/on site IT person available to maintain it. We rely heavily on the Cit's IT and the vendor support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are transitioning from SIRSI to WMS at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

I have put a low score re how likely it is we would implement an open source ILS. As we are not considering a change its unlikely at the moment. If we were I'm sure we would be open to considering an open source ILS if it had all the functionality we needed. (Library type: Medical; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

My library will use whichever ILS the cooperative chooses. It is simply too expensive for my small library to do anything different from the coop. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall I think SirsiDynix's customer service is prompt, responsive, and usually helpful. Sometimes when they've given answers - it wasn't really what I was looking for, but at least shot me in the right direction for what I needed. WorkFlows seems to be meant to have a maximum amount of customization. Yet, I feel like they customize things that no one needs customized, yet the defaults you'd like to be able to change are not possible. Figuring out changes of any sort is a long and time consuming process OFTEN. You can make changes in one spot, but they aren't permanent. In order for it to be permanent it needs to be done in this other spot - which is usually a pain to figure out where. I'm the type of person who likes to figure it out for myself, but SirsiDynix makes it really difficult to accomplish that even with their documentation. The product is not intuitive or user friendly when you come right down to it - and that is my biggest frustration with it overall. None of our library staff has a really good understanding of how the product works. They know how to do the little piece they've learned, and nothing else. I've been working to train them more on it, but if you don't use it every day you forget, and its pretty difficult to go back and re-figure it out again. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

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

We are a consortium service for 13 college library and as such some of the above answers represent a median or average response across all members (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are part of a Consortium which has just recently put out an EOI for our LMS to cover the next five years (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We use the SirsiDynix Enterprise discovery interface, which is great for our virtual reading rooms and search limiting (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Total number of items in the collection is c.20,000 of which c.3,300 are print books (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Your info is premature. We are NOT on Carl yet[...] provides our ILS. Currently, we remain on Sirsi Symphony. Switch over date is expected to be May 28, 2018, but it's unknown if that date is solid or not right now due to development issues with TLC. We're mostly happy with [...] , but Symphony (and the Enterprise product) suffer from serious lack of support from Sirsi, and in my professional opinion, I wouldn't recommend it to any library. Sirsi demonstrated a severe lack of ability to implement required improvements. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Level of satisfaction with the product is tempered by its limitations in configuration for consortia. We would be interested to see ILS developments centered around the user rather than the collection. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We obtain our ILS and ProQuest's Summon through our state consortia. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We've been a little disturbed that there is not a full-fledged upgrade to the OPAC (eLibrary) that will be offered free of charge. BlueCloud PAC is only partially able to replace eLibrary. We don't like the idea of having to pay for a modern replacement. We really like that the company has such a variety of customers from various types of libraries, which makes it easy to consider expanding consortia. Customer support continues to be very responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall, I'm very happy with SirsiDynix and think they are on the right track with their development. Their existing products are sound and robust. My only concern is that, as they expand their customer base and product line, they might find themselves spread too thin. It is discouraging to have been hearing about new BLUEcloud staff products (Circ, Cataloging etc) for over 3 years without a finished product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

While it is expensive, I can't imagine switching from SirsiDynix at this time or the near future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Not happy with BookMyne as it lacks the ease of use for users and sharing (reviews and lists) that we had with Bibliocommonst that was implemented by [...]. However, it's my understanding that BookMyne works better "behind the scenes" with our consortium / shared catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Patrons and Public Service Desk staff do NOT like our current ILS. The Cataloging component seems to work much better, and our Consrtia Tech staff also like this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

I have recently joined [...] and have not previously used Symphony - the above scores mainly reflect my colleagues' experience with the product. We have recently moved to a fully cloud-based Symphony build, and are currently in discussions regarding how the hosting of various services on Symphony/e-Library can be further improved (e.g. setting up an e-book platform). (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our consortium moved from Evergreen to Symphony because of concerns we had about the cost and support for Evergreen. From my point of view, our migration has been a huge mistake. Symphony looks like it was developed in the 1990s and still functions that way. Everything is batch processed. BlueCloud is somewhat helpful but there are huge disadvantages to it as well. We are still waiting for BlueCloud Circulation. The OPAC is not user friendly - the "fuzzy" searching logic delivers way too many hits and the hits are sorted in an unhelpful way. As for support, many times SirsiDynix answer is to "charge it to a card". We migrated in May 2017. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

SirsiDynix's adoption of internal Library Relations Managers resulted in a great improvement of customer service & reduction of response times, as they advocate for customers internally. Customer Support is very responsive & proactive. Development lead times are often disappointingly long & slow (the Enterprise discovery interface is still not mobile-ready responsively designed, although the first steps in that direction are due for release), but product quality is good when it's finally released. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Number of items is a complete estimate because I can not use my system easily to tell that number. Reports are set up to run automatically, and not on a as need basis. I can't edit my own reports. Books that are missing or lost don't shown in a catalog search, so you don't know that you still own them. While the system is supposed to be moving toward an online system, it still uses a computer based work station. It just is an outdated looking and non intuitive system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Could work better with consortia. They now offer regular (free) webinar tutorials which is much appreciated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Report running is my biggest complaint. There are too many gadgets and if you run the same report more than once you get a different result each time using the same parameters. The report template variety is minimal, and doesn't fully support the types of reports needed for most academic libraries. For example, there should be a way to run a collection analysis report. Also, the formatting of reports is awful! A report should be user-friendly and not require additional formatting by the report runner to clean out extraneous headings, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

[...] handles the purchase and maintenance of our ILS. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Support improved a few years ago and has remained the same. I wouldn't say it's any better than last year but it also isn't any worse. We have a brand new Director, so I'm not sure if there will be interest in migrating to a different ILS in the coming years. I believe it is highly unlikely right now given the current fiscal issues with the State and the millions of dollars in aid this municipality is no longer receiving (as is the case with every municipality in CT). Thanks for putting this together, it's always interesting to see the results. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

On the satisfaction question, the main reason for the lower score is due to the library staff having spent many years with the previous system and were hence attached and very accustomed to it. My personal satisfaction with Symphony would be much higher, but I am comparatively new to this service. On the customer support, their support is of very good quality to start with, hence there is only scope for incremental improvement. On working with the same company again, if based solely on functionality and current costs, then extremely likely. In reality, the pricing models offered by each supplier at the time of tender would have a major influence on the choice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Library is paying close attention to the efforts of the California Community College League's investigation of a Library Services Platform which will be offered to the consortia. Our reservations about our current system stem from the version of the system we can now afford. Sirsi has better products available but they are prohibitively expensive for our small institution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

we moved to Symphony as part of an amalgamation that didn't work out. We would like to return to our previous iteration (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are in a holding pattern with respect to our ILS. While SirsiDynix Symphony is not an ideal solution for an academic library in 2017, I have not seen that the new breed of "library services platforms" have achieved that status either. So we are waiting for something that truly "understands" current needs in academic discovery and access (especially, of course, in the area of e-resources), with an eye on FOLIO. In the meantime, we get by relatively well with a cobbled together patchwork of services: ILS from SirsiDynix, discovery service and makeshift catalog from EBSCO, and journals knowledge base/link resolver from ProQuest/Ex Libris (formerly Serials Solutions). With a bit of local expertise, it works fine... for now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Fairly smooth transition with much training and support provided. Will say that the vendor is not very proactive with product enhancements, most likely due to prioritising new Cloud based products. However, while these are being developed there are many aspects of the existing system which are very average, most notably the Outreach module. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

In my experience SirsiDynix is a flexible and responsive ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

It seems that Symphony and the BLUECloud suite are not being planned to integrate, in its core modules, the management of electronic resources. Instead, SirsiDynix decided to deploy a separate open source system and currently not searchable by the patrons. As a library who currently goes through staff cuts and constantly tries to find efficiencies in its daily operation, we do not see how this solution will help us become more efficient as it will require most likely to duplicate the records in both the ILS and eRM to make them searchable to the patrons. Other LSPs support the integration and management of e-resources within their core system supporting a more efficient workflow with easy discovery or A-Z access to library patrons. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Blue Cloud development seems to be window dressing on an old structure. Not being redesigned from ground up as a next gen LMS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Overall, I would say that the highlight being with SirsiDynix has definitely been its improved its customer relations, and its customer support. One thing that it has lagged behind in is its release of upgrades, which in some cases have been over a year in 'coming soon'. if this happens too often, when it come time to survey the market again, the current vendor may not be on par with what other vendors offer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We moved from a shared SirsiDynix system administered by the [...] this year because the [...] closed in June of this year. SirsiDynix provided excellent customer service during the contract changes and implementation of a SAAS system. They were very helpful when we had to move to a new system on a very short timeline. It was the shortest move I've been involved with and with very few migration problems. We are interested in open source ILS systems and are watching the market to see how it will develop over the next few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

This library is in a consortium that consists of libraries of varied sizes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Responses from the company are virtually non existant (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Hemos contratado Alma pero la migración no se realizará hasta enero de 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library service has been very satisfied with the transition from locally-hosted to vendor-hosted (SaaS). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] SirsiDynix Symphony still lacks two critical components as far as we are concerned. They need a better monetary reporting system and they need to be able to automatically adjust due dates when holidays fall within a loan period. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

It would be nice if SirsiDynix, especially in the public graphical interface, would provide something like amazon and other sources of info do, e.g., if one enters a title or author and doesn't get it quite right, the system says something like, "Did you mean...?" or "Perhaps you meant...." The public interface is not helpful like that. It's not quite as much an issue for staff using Workflows. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

This library is part of the [...] they make the decisions regarding any updates and/or changes to our system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been using the Open Source product - VuFind, as our web interface for a few years now. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Unlike previous products, it seems like Symphony is always undergoing upgrades or weird problems - it's exhausting to get multiple emails about this. Decisions about ILS are made at the library system level. Member libraries have little input. Staff find it hard to do searches in Symphony leading to frustration. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

In comparing Polaris, which was used at a previous library, with Workflows, which is used at my current, I find the latter to be a cumbersome product to work with. *Not a fan* (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Please note that my organization is an [...]. We are a consortium of public and private K-12 schools. So my responses are from a consortium level, not an individual library. Also, we do not get support from SirsiDynix, even though we have a support contract with them. All of our support is at the [...] level and from state suppor[...] . [...] is fantastic at supporting the ILS and everything else they provide. SirsiDynix is more of a disappointment - not support-wise, but as far as their product's feature-set and SirsiDynix's ability to keep up with the competition. Their weak spots are in reporting, handling of serials, loading of records, and a complete lack of a view/print module for the reports. Their system relies on a separate application - such as Microsoft Word - to view/print reports. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our 24-Library consortium is migrating to Polaris in the April 2018. SIRSI lack of response to our current issues is to be understandable given they did not win the renewal contract. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Recently integrated RFID technology with our Symphony system which hasn't been as seamless as we were led to believe. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Upgrading to Enterprise by SIRSI in Feb 2018 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We just signed a contract extension to stay with SD and implement its new Visibility product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not particularly pleased with Sirse/Dynix flexibility or analytics. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

The SIRSIDynix WorkFlows ILS is antiquated and overly complex to use. This year the vast majority of the school library staff that I support are classified staff without certification. Many are unfamiliar with software in general and struggle greatly with WorkFlows. These Aides working for minimum wage and are not allowed to leave their districts or take time for professional time for training. Additionally, the fact that .exe files have to be installed (and updated) on each machine/PC and that there is still not a printing module (in 2017) is beyond believable. I understand SIRSIDynix is working on the BlueCloud Mobile Circ environments, but the upgrades and enhancements that my Library staff ask for have not been delivered and may not be functional until next year. [...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are a co-op. Some stakeholders find Symphony fine, others are quite displeased. From and IT standpoint the ones most dissatisfied are the ones who don't avail themselves of training and familiarization opportunities (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Excellent support for [...]. Difficultly lies in communication between Library and Computer language. (Check out vs Discharge for example) (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Reports are very important. We use stats for most everything including funding. Our current reporting is not reliable or user friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Borrowers miss having access to their borrowing history (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are scheduled to migrate from SIRSI to KOHA in Spring 2018. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Symphony is not designed for small libraries and relies very heavily on inhouse systems administration. This is very expensive for small libraries. Although the SirsiDynix support team is available and friendly, it is no compensation for the complexity of the system. Apart from this, Symphony is a demanding and cumbersome system designed for gatekeeping rather than providing access. As the reliance on digital resources and research practices keeps developing, Symphony is left in the dust by other library systems. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

In 2016 we decided we wanted an intergrated catalogue on our website showing both the archive and books collections to our members. The [...] had invested in a Sirsi Dynix book catalogue only a couple of years previously. sirsi's archive system was not a full asset management tool so we invested in archive index place to run along side Sirsi. these both go through one portal making a searchable of both catalogues. We are very pleased with this because it allows us to also spread risk (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

database structure is outdated and interface is very clunky (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We're very interested in FOLIO development, but are waiting to see some early implementations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are looking at replacing both our ILS and discovery from EBSCO. Our Symphony ILS has given us no problems or issues, customer service has been good, but with modern ILS and discovery integration, we're expecting to migrate in the next 1-2 years to something that does both. EBSCO Discovery is expensive, they refuse to negotiate, and its not that great of a product for what you have to pay. As our database holdings move away from EBSCO due to pricing, our discovery becomes less and less useful as EBSCO does not play nice with other vendors from Gale or ProQuest. We will be looking for something that does. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Questions that were not applicable to my sue were answered with a "5" Customer support handled through the consortium (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

SirsiDynix in our experience has excellent customer support. SirsiDynix customer support was given a "5" in the 6th question, which asks if it was better or worse, because it has not changed from previous years. Symphony is a good product, with a wide range of functionality, but the staff interface is clunky to use and a replacement has been a long time in coming. SirsiDynix tends to be expensive and this is the basic reason we lowered their score for our willingness to deal with them for a future migration. We are not using an Open Source ILS. That being said, our impression of Open Source ILS, including Koha, is that it requires more in-house technical support than a proprietary system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] We do not manage the ILS system or the account with the vendor. We direct all of our customer support to the [..] not to the vendor. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Absolutely no contact with Sirsi Dynix in my 4.5 years at [...] . Quite surprising! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

First of all, we work through [...] and all Director's for each of the libraries vote to approve what happens with the ILS system. There are many Directors that don't know anything other than SirsiDynex and are not willing to look at new products. Since we are a small number of libraries that form this network, cost is a major consideration. So far our leader, [...] has provided outstanding support and advice and works hard to find workable solutions to issues that arise. Without [...] work and SD's assistance, I want to jump to another product. I personally liked Sierra better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

SirsiDynix are always slow to develop new products/functionality and then want to charge additional fees once the developments are available, despite things like e-resource management and web clients being basic client expectations of a modern ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are currently working on a migration from SirsiDynix Symphony to Innovative's Polaris ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We moved two years ago to a hosted solution with SirsiDynix, primarily because it would save our District money on hardware and personnel. This has been very helpful in keeping the ILS updated regularly. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very happy with the implementation, training and customer support provided by the vendor. They respond promptly to problems and questions, and are very patient dealing with our questions. They know their products and are able to help and provide advice. Help is available 24 7. The products we use, Symphony and Enterprise in our opinion are inferior products compared to our previous system, Liberty. They are clunky, clumsy, awkard, nonintuitive, and downright frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We have been with Sirsi/Dynix since 1994. At the time, it was a very small company and we are a very small library. Although the ILS has tons of bells and whistles, over time, the cost and the ability to maintain the system to take advantage of all the resources available using our current staff became unmanageable. You definitely need an IT person on staff or knowledgeable staff dedicated to maintaining the system. There is an added cost to every small thing that is associated with this ILS. The customer support is good, the company has just outgrown us in every way. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We like the concept of open source, but, we need an open source solution that is demonstrably proven through successful implementations in large academic libraries similar to ours. We will not be a test site for an open source implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are going to trial EDS and Summon this spring. Funding is an issue and we may not purchase until fall 2019 (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Improvements are desired in the ability to more easily comply with CASL legislation. For example, to more easily allow patrons to opt in or out for different types of notices (holds, overdues, newsletters, special announcement, etc.) and to prevent multiple notices being sent when family members use the same email address. Also the ability to send email notices from within the ILS that are more professional looking without having to maintain a separate email list with a third party service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I understand that the Follett system is much easier to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

I did not know the answer to some of these questions. Perhaps there should be an "I'm not sure or don't know" option. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The number of items in the collection given is the number of items listed as held (i.e. not discarded) in the ILS and does not include the historic items that have not been added to the ILS. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The libraries have been with SirsiDynix since 1999. As the company has grown, the software has continued to improve. SirsiDynix does take customer suggestions into consideration for future updates. The only negative comment is the annual cost continues to increase. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

BLUEcloud products have been very disappointing. Still lacking too much functionality to be effective or efficient for library staff. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Siendo Summon una herramienta altamente tecnológica y robusta, se decidió el cambio a EDS, debido a que hay problemas de resultados No encontrados en la recuperación en las BD EBSCO que son nuestra mayoría de bases, Ahora estamos evaluando el comportamiento de EDS con bases de datos que No son EBSCO. Entre Summon y EDS presenciamos un claro problema que repercute a nuestras bibliotecas y se trata de la transparencia de los metadatos y competencia entre industrias que poseen herramientas de descubrimiento y a la vez son proveedores de contenidos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We migrated in the Summer of 2017 and have been very happy with the support and implementation of our new ILS form SirsiDynix. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am not sure if I answered correctly as the [...] implements this in our Library system (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Trying to get our current ebooks subscription into the catalog has become a long ordeal. The thought is dangling out there that the vendor will come up with a way to streamline this, but implementation is on an unknown schedule. Hard to answer too many questions too specifically about the vendor, as we turn to consortial support who then work with the vendor if needed. Things seem like they're going well from our end. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

ILS

Library Technology Guides is a service provided by Marshall Breeding, independent consultant, author, and speaker.