Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for WorldShare Management Services


2018 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction73 2 2 1 3 7 13 24 16 5 76.517
ILS Functionality73 1 1 1 1 4 10 11 21 15 8 76.537
Print Functionality73 2 1 1 2 4 12 17 20 14 87.017
Electronic Functionality73 2 3 1 3 3 14 26 11 10 76.607
Company Satisfaction72 1 1 3 3 6 11 20 16 11 76.747
Support Satisfaction72 1 4 5 5 11 20 18 8 76.687
Support Improvement71 1 2 9 27 4 13 11 4 55.875
Company Loyalty71 3 2 3 2 6 9 5 13 13 15 96.247
Open Source Interest73 23 10 8 6 4 12 4 4 2 02.582

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS73 79.59%
Considering new Interface73 45.48%
System Installed on time?73 6893.15%

Average Collection size: 374068

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00028
[3] 100,001-250,00016
[4] 250,001-1,000,00019
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0005
[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.

WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1406.49 596.85406.0586.3840022
ILSFunctionality1406.50 596.95406.0085.6340022
PrintFunctionality1387.06 587.26396.6486.2540022
ElectronicFunctionality1376.53 576.65406.4586.7540022
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1406.74 597.02406.4586.7540022
CompanyLoyalty1366.49 576.88405.7586.8840022



2017 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction140 2 1 2 3 6 12 34 45 23 12 76.497
ILS Functionality140 2 1 3 4 4 18 25 38 36 9 76.507
Print Functionality138 1 2 4 6 12 11 34 42 26 87.067
Electronic Functionality137 2 1 4 2 9 10 27 38 30 14 76.537
Company Satisfaction139 2 1 2 3 3 14 26 36 28 24 76.797
Support Satisfaction140 3 1 3 3 2 15 23 35 33 22 76.747
Support Improvement137 4 2 4 16 32 24 18 23 14 55.996
Company Loyalty136 6 3 4 5 3 19 12 26 26 32 96.497
Open Source Interest139 54 18 21 10 10 13 3 2 2 6 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS142 107.04%
Considering new Interface142 96.34%
System Installed on time?142 12688.73%

Average Collection size: 367340

TypeCount
Public4
Academic111
School2
Consortium2
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00049
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction133 2 1 3 5 4 9 20 40 33 16 76.707
ILS Functionality133 1 2 4 5 5 11 18 43 34 10 76.557
Print Functionality134 1 2 1 1 8 20 30 50 21 87.258
Electronic Functionality132 3 2 2 7 6 12 18 35 38 9 86.437
Company Satisfaction134 1 5 3 4 7 20 25 43 26 87.048
Support Satisfaction133 1 2 5 2 3 7 17 29 43 24 86.998
Support Improvement127 2 1 6 7 29 11 17 23 31 96.617
Company Loyalty132 7 2 4 1 4 13 7 19 32 43 96.918
Open Source Interest131 55 24 21 6 4 8 7 2 1 3 01.761

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS134 85.97%
Considering new Interface134 85.97%
System Installed on time?134 12694.03%

Average Collection size: 352782

TypeCount
Public4
Academic102
School1
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00049
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction94 2 1 2 10 12 28 30 9 86.947
ILS Functionality94 2 2 3 7 9 19 23 20 9 76.437
Print Functionality94 2 1 8 14 24 29 16 87.177
Electronic Functionality93 3 1 1 6 11 15 20 29 7 86.587
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 3 3 12 20 34 19 87.318
Support Satisfaction93 3 1 6 3 14 17 31 18 87.088
Support Improvement89 1 2 9 18 14 16 14 15 56.427
Company Loyalty92 2 1 1 4 5 4 6 17 22 30 97.138
Open Source Interest92 45 17 14 2 1 5 3 2 3 01.511

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS95 33.16%
Considering new Interface95 44.21%
System Installed on time?95 8993.68%

Average Collection size: 424304

TypeCount
Public2
Academic75
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00022
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 2 1 3 10 28 22 4 76.887
ILS Functionality71 1 2 3 8 12 31 11 3 76.517
Print Functionality70 1 1 1 4 8 15 33 7 87.218
Electronic Functionality70 1 1 1 7 10 20 23 7 86.937
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 1 1 6 15 34 11 87.398
Support Satisfaction71 2 1 3 8 19 18 20 97.448
Support Improvement69 2 2 13 9 14 17 12 86.867
Company Loyalty73 1 1 1 2 1 4 15 23 25 97.598
Open Source Interest71 36 15 3 9 4 1 2 1 01.280

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS74 34.05%
Considering new Interface74 68.11%
System Installed on time?74 6689.19%

Average Collection size: 444490

TypeCount
Public4
Academic56
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00018
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 2 1 5 2 10 6 5 76.777
ILS Functionality31 3 3 2 4 5 8 3 3 75.816
Print Functionality30 1 1 2 4 2 6 8 6 86.807
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 4 2 1 7 8 6 86.687
Company Satisfaction30 1 5 3 3 8 10 97.378
Support Satisfaction31 1 1 4 4 7 7 7 77.007
Support Improvement31 1 10 3 4 7 6 56.777
Company Loyalty30 1 1 1 4 1 2 7 13 97.338
Open Source Interest30 15 3 1 4 2 4 1 01.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 13.13%
Considering new Interface32 13.13%
System Installed on time?32 2475.00%

Average Collection size: 260399

TypeCount
Public2
Academic25
School1
Consortium0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,00013
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction21 1 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 76.387
ILS Functionality21 2 2 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.486
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 86.768
Support Satisfaction21 2 3 1 1 4 3 7 96.627
Support Improvement20 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 96.707
Company Loyalty21 2 1 1 4 5 8 96.958
Open Source Interest21 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 12.522

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS22 00.00%
Considering new Interface22 00.00%
System Installed on time?22 1777.27%

Average Collection size: 316875

TypeCount
Public0
Academic21
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0006
[3] 100,001-250,0009
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 2 4 3 1 77.107
ILS Functionality10 1 1 2 2 3 1 75.205
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 2 1 6 98.209
Support Satisfaction10 1 1 3 5 98.209
Support Improvement9 2 1 2 4 97.568
Company Loyalty10 1 1 3 5 98.009
Open Source Interest10 5 3 2 00.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 00.00%
Considering new Interface10 00.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 392232

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010


0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2010

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2009

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2008

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2007

2018 : gen: 6.51 company 6.74 loyalty 6.24 support 6.68

2017 : gen: 6.49 company 6.79 loyalty 6.49 support 6.74

2016 : gen: 6.70 company 7.04 loyalty 6.91 support 6.99

2015 : gen: 6.94 company 7.31 loyalty 7.13 support 7.08

2014 : gen: 6.88 company 7.39 loyalty 7.59 support 7.44

2013 : gen: 6.77 company 7.37 loyalty 7.33 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.38 company 6.76 loyalty 6.95 support 6.62

2011 : gen: 7.10 company 8.20 loyalty 8.00 support 8.20

Comments (survey2017)

Issues with the Discovery Layer Knowledge Base come directly from lack of communication between OCLC, database vendors and publishers. We feel like a ping pong ball. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Number of items is print only - I don't have figures at hand for the E-resources. I would love to move to an open source ILS, but my administration simply won't support me. OCLC WMS is a great product, but over-sized for the needs of our library: it was imposed on us from a manager. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Over the last year there have been several problems with OCLC systems. It is likely that this is due to growing pains as the number of WMS subscribing libraries increases. Nevertheless, the complications that it has added throughout the year have been frustrating. This is the first year that our satisfaction level has dipped since switching to WMS and I am hopeful that the normal high level of operation will return soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

OCLC is in the process of upgrading the system's underlying infrastructure, and so we've had to deal with a number of brief outages and other issues that weren't present previously. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Software updates are frequent and not-disruptive unlike our previous system. Good method in place to vet enhancements, sort of "continuous improvement". The Report Designer is optional extra, but you need it to fully extract data for specialized reports. Operating this system is much easier than previous systems we had, and it is easy to learn for both students and librarians. The integration of online resources cannot be underestimated: one click, and it is there. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We've been happy with WMS from OCLC, but we go along with the [...] regarding ILS and if others in the [...] group are dissatisfied and would like to move to an open source ILS, we would also consider it. When we were looking to switch ILS platforms, we did look at open source but at the time, none of the ones we were considering seemed complete enough, nor did they integrate our consortium needs and wishes like WMS did. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Software updates are frequent and not disruptive, unlike our previous library systems. Good method of vetting improvements, sort of a continuous improvement process. The Report Designer is an optional extra, but is needed to fully extract data for specialized reports. The integration of online resources cannot be underestimated in value: one click, and it is done. Overall, the system is the easiest to operate than previous systems, and it is easy to train both librarians and students. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

It's not so much the ILS system but the willingness of other vendors to work within the ILS to make sure the right connections are being made between the ILS and all of our electronic content. Linking to ebooks in our collection has been a major problem and the indexing provided by 3rd party vendors has been somewhat lacking. But things are improving albeit slowly. Students like our new interface and the ability to "discover" online resources such as articles alongside our physical resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall I'm satisfied with the vendor, though there are some issues that cannot be overlooked, such as occasional server inconsistency, resulting in problems with search retrieval. Also, there's a tendency to adhere to production roadmaps at the expense of completed functionality, resulting in features that don't work optimally. I sometimes question whether end-user needs (library users/students) are fully taken into consideration. Other than that, I see incremental progress in our system, and support is friendly and responsive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The only problem we have noticed is that there has been a noticeable increase in downtime of the system since we implemented it. It is the one disadvantage to using a cloud-based system. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

OCLC needs to spend more time with development and testing before releasing updates to software. Every update seems to create a new issue, which requires another update. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

OCLC is too complex for our needs and requires too much high-level IT support. The Library team is moving towards a system that we can manage ourselves. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

The public side of OCLC WMS works as expected and problems are addressed quickly by OCLC. Its the staff side that is clunky. If a library can afford the separate Report Designer, then the library can design reports to obtain information. We do not have the report designer, and we are back to manual counts of items as they come in to answer basic questions for annual surveys. What I can get now tells me overall numbers, but not broken down by when we acquired it or by how many items are included in a title. We have 229, 414 titles. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

WMS Record Manager and Acquisitions modules do not work well together, especially for serials management. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

OCLC is responsive to our needs and concerns. WMS is still under development and we need more improvements in order to rate it higher in many survey areas. Noticeable downtime and service disruptions have increased this past year. They are addressing the issues by adding server capacity, but degradations are still problematic. Overall the system has made great strides in improvement since our migration in 2013. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

WMS has improved greatly since we first implemented it four years ago, but it still lacks some basic functionality, such as the ability to globally update selected fields within an identified set of records. In addition, while WorldCat Discovery always brings back some search results, actually retrieving the correct record for a known item is surprisingly difficult and haphazard. This hampers collection development and maintenance. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Vendor very responsive by email and phone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our relationship with OCLC WMS has steadily improved since initial implementation. It now provides a very good discovery interface -- not yet excellent, but steadily improving. The products are generally fine and the service / support has gotten vastly better. For the cost, this is by far the most effective and economical system available to us. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are somewhat satisfied with OCLC WMS. It is still a system in development. For example, the Acquisition module doesn't integrate with our campus accounting system. So, we have to currently maintain two systems for accounting purposes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Coming along, but still needs a lot of development. Their Discovery Product is still not on par with the World Local interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very happy with OCLC's WMS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our migration from Voyager/PRIMO to OCLC WorldShare Management Service/Discovery has been both rewarding and challenging. The fact that we do not have to maintain servers (with software and hardware updates, patches, virus protection, etc), download and install client software is great. At the same time, we miss a lot of the functionality that was available to us in our former ILS. We had access to the code to make changes to the system if needed. Example - A New Books Listing or recently acquired titles were a feature in Voyager that we were able to add using Perl scripts. We are not able to do something similar in WMS at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC seems to have brought many libraries onto WMS in a short period of time without adequately preparing for the burden on its servers. As soon as we went live, WMS began having regular and persistent "System degradations." The vendor communicated about these degradations frequently and has assured users that it is in the process of upgrading server capacity and reliability. Things have improved in the past month but as new customers, we are concerned about a lack of stability for the cloud-based system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The system should be farther alone in progress. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Company in America so accessing support can be difficult due to time difference, it would be preferable if the company had a phone number to call rather than lodging a help desk request. Difficulty with data and reports. Need to be able to search by shelving location and it doesn't offer that function. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

One aspect of WMS that was initially appealing is that you can chose which modules to license, and thus costs can be controlled. One module is an advanced analytics module, while pre-made reports can be run with any subscription. We're finding, as the product advances, that more and more important functionality is being moved to the analytics module, and the pre-made reports are not necessarily keeping up. This is frustrating, as it feels like some key data is not available to us, though we don't need to the fully functionality of the analytics module. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The largest amount of trouble is many of the databases change or are restricted and the system is not changed to reflect it. Meaning we have a large portion of students who are finding broken links and resources. It is also important to note that many times tickets are opened due to errors and not resolved for months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

97,817 items per WMS collections report by shelving location; 490,292 total holdings per WMS collection evaluation, including digital collections selected in the KB. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We just migrated this past Spring and so we're still tweaking settings etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Pleased with the OCLC system. Updates are being made to improve functionality in a timely manner. We are at the tail-end of migrating to the system and working on clean-up post implementation. Not everything is perfect but it is a good system. As long time owner/customers of OCLC, this was a logical procurement. Our previous system (Polaris) was bought out by another company (Innovative) and did not work well for our academic library needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

In our opinion, the ILS development team is disconnected from the needs of public library end users, and also from its own support department. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

As with many library systems there is great POTENTIAL to WMS. I wish OCLC could devote more resources to its development. The user community has plenty of ideas, and while OCLC does regularly enhance the various product modules, there seems to be a lack of folks at OCLC able to get the changes made. Perhaps OCLC is having difficulty hiring enough programmers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

It's been a rocky year with OCLC. Before I have a chance to understand the fundamentals of WMS, the fundamentals change, and I'm left in a vicious cycle. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are very satisfied with OCLC's WMS system, except for the discovery interface. Our consortium has been working with the WMS support team to improve discovery and the team has been quite responsive. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The company makes great attempts at customer service. They provide excellent collaboration with our consortium. However, sometimes their implementation is less than thorough; follow-through is not always on target. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am still learning some of the things, so I have little more to say. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Functionally, the ILS is good, however they keep messing with our data on the backend which causes lots of extra work. Data reliability trumps functionality most of the time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Although we implemented OCLC’s WMS in July 2015 they neglected to install the analytics module until we demanded a refund. Customer service is great, everything else is trash. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I would like to see more reporting options included in our subscription and not just available via additional cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We opted not to purchase the report creation module, and I have found the canned reports to be very basic. But the additional cost was out of our price range. We have had very good response from Support both via email and phone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We're very happy with WMS. It's been a year and we are becoming more familiar and comfortable with the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We understand that the experience is a success because with the implementation of the system: WMS, we share collections and knowledge, minimizing costs, etc., being able to dedicate our efforts to innovate and generate value, to the institution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ILS