Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2018: An International Survey of Library Automation

by , February 10, 2019.

This twelfth edition of the International Survey of Library Automation presents the latest data on how libraries perceive the effectiveness of the strategic technology systems upon which they depend for their daily operations and to fulfill the expectations of their patrons. This report presents and interprets survey responses gathered from November 2018 through February 2019. The survey focuses primarily on integrated library systems and library services platforms as the applications used to acquire, describe, manage, and provide access to their collections. It also assesses the quality of support given from the respective vendor and probes interest in migrating to new solutions and attitudes toward open source alternatives.

2018 the International Survey of Library Automation
This report is an original publication
of Library Technology Guides.
Notable Observations
The migration away from legacy ILS products is in full swing. Most libraries using Millennium, Voyager, and Aleph noted they are considering moving to new systems.
Academic libraries considering migration mention Alma as one of their replacement candidates almost three times more than any other product.
Products with steady or rising satisfaction scores and high migration indicators include Ex Libris Aleph, Ex Libris Voyager, SirsiDynix Horizon. Innovative Millennium has diminishing satisfaction scores and high migration indicators.
Larger proportions of libraries using flagship ILS products registered interest in new products. About 20 percent of libraries using Library.Solution, Sierra, and Symphony are considering replacements.
Biblionix Apollo received high satisfaction scores and very few libraries using it are considering alternatives. Even through its satisfaction ratings are not superlative, libraries using Ex Libris Alma registered a very low level of interest in changing systems.
Both major open source products, Koha and Evergreen, show increasing levels of satisfaction, with variance depending on support arrangements. Awareness of FOLIO continues to increase with 65 libraries mentioning it among their migration candidates.

3,549 libraries completed this year's survey, providing sufficient data to focus the analysis more on each category of library type and size rather than aggregating across all responses. Libraries of different sizes and types bring different expectations to their systems, making it essential to segment survey results to make meaningful comparisons and extract trends. The functional requirements of public, academic, school, and other types of libraries overlap to a certain extent, but in other areas each has distinctive, if not contradictory, functionality. Some of the products represented in the survey have been designed for specific sectors. For those used by multiple types of libraries, the analysis of the survey results by size and type of organization provides an opportunity to observe any differences in satisfaction across these categories.

Several themes are evident in the last few editions of the perceptions survey. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Conventional integrated library systems dominate public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also favored proprietary ILS products. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal interesting patterns regarding the newer generation of library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are perceived as less capable for managing print resources than legacy ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores--with little differentiation among question categories--to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need.

I appreciate the time given by all the libraries that responded to the survey this year and in its previous iterations. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to explore as they consider their options regarding these strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a large aggregation of evaluative data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.

Table of Contents



Introduction

top

Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

The 2018 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 3549 libraries from 78 countries describing experiences with 104 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey results include 909 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

View the narrative comments given by responders
Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
Apollo led in all categories for very small public libraries and for all small public libraries except for electronic resource management. Apollo has been very well received by small public libraries and the narrative comments given are overwhelmingly positive.
ByWater Solutions, received top scores for its support for Koha from mid-sized public libraries in general satisfaction, ILS support, and company loyalty. Among Small Public Libraries, ByWater Solutions received top ratings for satisfaction with managing print resources. Koha with support from ByWater Solutions also received generally positive ratings from small academic libraries, though it didn’t receive top scores. It is notable that Koha with support from ByWater Solutions has been implemented by both academic and public libraries and receives generally positive ratings in these diverse libraries contrary to the trend toward specialization by library type.
Symphony from SirsiDynix, for the second year in a row, received top scores among large public libraries and large academic libraries for customer support. It is notable that even through Symphony receives weaker marks by large academic libraries in categories related to functionality, SirsiDynix receives very positive ratings for its support services.
Polaris received top rankings among large public libraries for general satisfaction, overall functionality, print resource management, electronic resource management, and company loyalty; they ranked Innovative's support servicdes less positively.
Alma from Ex Libris continues to be evaluated as the top performer among large and mid-sized academic libraries for general ILS satisfaction, overall functionality, end effectiveness in managing electronic resources. Alma receives weaker scores for its management of print resources. For large and mid-sized academic libraries, Ex Libris received top company loyalty scores for its three products: Alma, Aleph, and Voyager.
OPALS, an open source ILS developed by MediaFlex, received highest scores in all categories among school and small academic libraries. The narrative comments voiced unanimous support for the capabilities of the software and especially for the implementation and support services.

Previous editions: 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

top

The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].

Caveats

top

Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

Constructive criticism

top

The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

Survey Response Demographics

top

Collection Size Categories
countmoreless
308010,000
109310,00150,000
46850,001100,000
539100,001250,000
370250,001500,000
244500,0011,000,000
3541,000,00110,000,000
2310,000,001
151No collection size data
3550Total of Categories

This year, the survey attracted 3,549 responses from libraries in 78 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,648 responses), followed by Canada (235), Australia (160), United Kingdom (105), Spain (50), New Zealand (48), and Ireland (23). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.

While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (55), Argentina (12), Chile (7), Colombia (4), Mexico (1), Venezuela (3), and Uruguay (1). A total of 901 of the 3,549 total responses (25.4 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 3,549 responses: ( 2017=3,992; 2016=4,042; 2015=3,453; 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 34,145 responses. The survey was open between November 3, 2018 and February 4, 2019.

There were 151 of the 3,549 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.

Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,503 responses, followed by academic libraries with 1,051. This year 441 responses came from school libraries.

The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:

General Information about the Survey

top

productcountreport
Symphony481ils report
Sierra443ils report
OPALS342ils report
Alma317ils report
Polaris270ils report
Destiny204ils report
AGent VERSO148ils report
Koha -- ByWater Solutions129ils report
Apollo112ils report
WorldShare Management Services109ils report
Atriuum101ils report
Horizon100ils report
Library.Solution88ils report
Voyager71ils report
Millennium66ils report
ALEPH 50064ils report
Spydus54ils report
Koha -- Independent37ils report
Evergreen -- Equinox Software36ils report
Evergreen -- Independent34ils report
EOS.Web31ils report
Koha -- PTFS Europe19ils report
Libero17ils report
Carl.X16ils report

The survey attracted responses from libraries using 104 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author.

This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.


Survey Results

top

The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.

Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7% 55.3% 64.6% 66.9% 75.0%
Alma -- -- -- -- -- 25.0% 16.7% 4.3% 2.3% 2.5% 1.2% 3.2%
Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8%
Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2% 34.9% 28.6% 31.6% 35.0%
Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8% 18.3% 12.4% 25.2% 21.6%
Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9% 65.5% 75.0% 71.3% 74.2%
Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3% 7.9% 7.3% 7.9% 8.1%
Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.1% 6.4% 10.8% 12.9% 13.4% 19.2% 21.4%
Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8% 18.0% 18.6% 19.8% 18.7%
Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.5% 69.2% 66.7% 69.7% 83.1%
WorldShare Management Services -- -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 4.1% 3.2% 6.0% 7.0% 9.2%

Three legacy systems seem to be in a final phase of use, with over 75 percent of the libraries using them stating interest in migration (Voyager: 83.1; Aleph: 75; Millennium:64.2); We can anticipate the numbers of libraries using these products to drop rapidly in the next few years.

Libraries using SirsiDynix Horizon have shown a diminishing interest in migrating to new systems since 2010; In the last two years interest in migrating increased from 28.6 percent to 35 percent. While SirsiDynix states that it will continue to support Horizon for the indefinite future, there does seem to be increased attrition, with interest in migrating to other products.

Several flagship ILS products show a moderate interest in migration (Library.Solution: 21.6; Sierra 19.2; Symphony 18.7) About ten percent of libraries using Polaris and WorldShare Management Services indicated interest in migrating.

Products with more negligible interest include Alma (3.2) and Apollo (1.8)

The academic library arena remains in a phase of migrations away from legacy products. The survey provides some indicators which may indicate the direction of future migrations:

  • Aleph: 64 libraries responded; 75 percent indicated interest in migration; most (33) included Alma as a replacement candidate; 6 mentioned FOLIO; and 4 WMS. 6.63 loyalty score
  • Voyager: 71 libraries responded; 83 percent indicated interest in migration; 40 included Alma as a replacement candidate; 8 mentioned FOLIO; 13 mentioned WMS. 6.53 loyalty score.
  • Millennium: 66 libraries responded; 74 percent indicated interest in migration; 22 indicated Alma as a replacement candidate; 19 mentioned Sierra; 5 mentioned FOLIO; 4.49 loyalty score

Large and mid-sized academic libraries give Alma high ratings for overall functionality and for electronic resource management, but give it weaker scores for managing print. These libraries give Sierra, Symphony, Aleph, and Voyager higher scores for managing print resources. Given that academic libraries spend ever smaller proportions of their collection budgets on print resources, perceived weaknesses in this category does not diminish the strategic impact of library services platforms such as Alma and WorldShare Management Services. Small academic libraries, which use Alma as members of consortia, generally gave Alma lower ratings. Alma’s ratings show strengths in larger academic institutions and for managing electronic resources. The libraries using Alma indicate very low interest in changing systems. Academic libraries using legacy systems identify Alma as a migration candidate more than any other product. All these factors can be seen as indicators of the continued momentum of Alma among large and mid-sized academic libraries.

In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (182), WorldShare Management Services (67), FOLIO (65), Koha (62), Sierra (39), Polaris (27), and Symphony (22). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 205 mentioned Koha, 151 mentioned FOLIO, 66 mentioned Evergreen, and 6 mentioned TIND.

FOLIO remains in its development phase, through some libraries have indicated that it will be implemented in the coming months. As such, this survey cannot yet address its performance, but can measure interest. FOLIO has been mentioned by a growing number of libraries as a possible migration candidate (2018: 65 libraries looking for a new system listed FOLIO among products under consideration; 2017: 59; 2016: 41). 15 libraries using Alma noted interest in FOLIO; only one of these libraries indicated they were considering changing systems.

The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

Current ILS Responses Shopping Percent Academic Alma WMS Polaris Sierra Symphony FOLIO Koha Evergreen Kuali TIND
ALEPH 500 64 48 75.0 38 33415262000
Horizon 100 35 35.0 13 8373436000
Library.Solution 88 19 21.6 3 2011002200
Millennium 66 49 74.2 37 2212019143102
Sierra 443 95 21.4 63 3820221225302
Polaris 270 22 8.1 1 0010006100
Symphony 481 90 18.7 43 181180488201
Voyager 71 59 83.1 48 401304184100
Any Product 1826727392265621117

Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

International Perspective

top

The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,006 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

productTotal responsesUnited StatesInternational
All Products3,5492,6481,006
Symphony481318163
Horizon1007327
Sierra44335489
Millennium665016
Polaris27022941
Aleph642935
Voyager715813
Alma317205112
Axiell Aurora505
WorldShare Management Services1099217
AbsysNet12012

top

Innovative company profile

Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, including Sierra, Polaris, and Virtua. Its Millennium ILS, the predecessor to Sierra continues to be widely used, though the number of implementations is declining rapidly. The company is active in almost all global regions. Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 443 from libraries using Sierra, 270 using Polaris, 66 using Millennium, and 14 using Virtua, or 793 in total.

Innovative saw a change of ownership in Mar 2012 and subsequently acquired Polaris (Mar 2014) and VTLS (Jun 2014). This timeline of events can be considered in relation to the survey results over this period.

Sierra

top

Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 443 libraries, including 197 academic libraries, 187 publics, 18 consortia and 5 special library. Loyalty scores were weak overall (5.23), with large public libraries (3.84) and large academics (4.48) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 7.96 in 2012 to 5.17 in 2015, but has increased slightly since, with 5.17 this year. General satisfaction decreased slightly since last year down to 6.09 from 6.27. 95 out of the 443 responses (21.4%) indicated interest in moving from Sierra to a new system.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4376.09 696.43735.67475.191106.65596.05135.460185.61
ILSFunctionality4376.38 696.87735.93475.681096.80606.17135.460186.11
PrintFunctionality4347.13 687.57737.14477.301076.91606.92136.150187.11
ElectronicFunctionality4275.06 665.14714.72474.701095.44575.30124.580183.72
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4355.17 695.57734.84484.461075.98604.97133.690184.06
CompanyLoyalty4305.23 675.42734.63484.481066.05575.56133.850184.44

Millennium

top

A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type).

The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 455 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. 66 libraries using Millennium responded this year (2017=94; 2016=144; 2015=174; 2014=210; 2013=248; 2012=389; 2011=454). Over the editions of the survey, Millennium has shifted from Innovative's flagship ILS to a legacy product. Out of the 66 libraries which responded this year, 48 indicated interest in moving to a new system. The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra to 72.7% this year. Migration options mentioned included Alma (22), Sierra (19), WorldShare Management Services (12), Koha (3), Symphony (1), and FOLIO (4). This year was the first where more libraries mentioned Alma as a replacement candidate for Millennium than Innovative's own Sierra.

Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady to rising ratings from 2007 through 2010, with declining satisfaction scores through last year. This year saw a decrease in satisfaction scores across all categories, following a slight increase last year. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77, 2016: 5.14, 2017: 5.47, 2018: 5.23).

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

MillenniumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS655.23 165.25154.47114.8252112
ILSFunctionality655.38 165.50154.73114.6452112
PrintFunctionality646.72 166.25156.73107.5052112
ElectronicFunctionality644.06 164.25153.67113.6452112
SatisfactionCustomerSupport644.45 165.06154.00113.1852112
CompanyLoyalty654.49 164.69152.93113.4552112

Polaris

top

Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 258 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in for general satisfaction (7.20), overall functionality (7.14), print resource management (7.57). Although Polaris led in scores for electronic resource management (6.29) relative to competing products, the overall level of scores in this category of electronic resource management was substantially lower than others.

From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings. From 2012 through 2015, ratings for Polaris have declined in all categories. 2016 ratings in each category saw noticable improvement, with a slight drop since. General satisfaction scores improved (7.39) as did ILS support (6.94)

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2587.39 97.44001467.40617.51126.670177.12
ILSFunctionality2567.40 97.33001457.45607.42126.500177.47
PrintFunctionality2527.67 97.00001427.73617.79126.830157.80
ElectronicFunctionality2536.43 95.44001436.50616.44125.830155.80
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2516.94 97.00001416.92616.92126.330166.88
CompanyLoyalty2476.52 96.44001396.40607.15125.830155.40

Virtua

top

This year 14 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. 8 out of these libraries stated interest in migrating to a new system (57.1%). The number of responses was too low for confident results. The ratings for customer support were up from last year. Ratings for loyalty dropped dramatically (6.0 in 2016; 3.57 in 2018).

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

VirtuaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS146.00 43411000
ILSFunctionality145.93 43411000
PrintFunctionality147.29 43411000
ElectronicFunctionality145.00 43411000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport147.14 43411000
CompanyLoyalty143.57 43411000

Ex Libris company profile

Ex Libris

top

Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform, as well as Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems. This year 311 libraries using Alma, 64 using Aleph, and 71 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 446 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015.

The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be large and complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings. The perceptions of customer support from Ex Libris are moderate this year.

Alma

top

Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (6.70), overall ILS functionality (6.63), and effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.73). These libraries rated Alma's print functionality (6.92) below that of Sierra (7.3), and Aleph (7.33, though higher than that of Voyager (6.85). Alma's satisfaction levels for managing print resources have risen each year since 2014. This lower rating for print functionality did not deter libraries from giving Alma the higest rating for overall functionality, reflecing the higher priority in managing electronic resources. Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest in the category of Overall ILS functionality (6.59) and effectiveness in managing electronic resources (6.50).

Alma was not rated as positively among small academic libraries. Its ragings were in the lower third of the pack, except in the category relating to the management of electronic resources, its scores were in the upper third (6.38).

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3116.55 766.53936.60806.70000096.89
ILSFunctionality3106.71 757.00936.56806.63000096.89
PrintFunctionality3076.94 767.29936.86796.92000076.43
ElectronicFunctionality3056.52 766.38936.48796.73000096.89
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3085.87 746.09935.86805.860000106.00
CompanyLoyalty3056.58 736.71926.46806.610000107.30

Voyager

top

Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials. Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (6.58) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (3.35). Large academics gave Voyager low ratings in most categories except for company loyalty (6.95). Mid-sized academics showed even stronger loyalty (6.97); small academics indicated a bit weaker company loyalty (6.33). The strong loyalty scores for libraries using Voyager can be seen as a positive indicator for eventual migration to Alma. Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (81.7%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned Alma among the candidate replacements (40). Others mentioned included FOLIO (8), WorldShare Management Services (13), Sierra (4), and Koha (4).

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

VoyagerallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS715.27 224.86155.87205.1500001
ILSFunctionality714.99 224.77155.67204.7000001
PrintFunctionality716.58 226.23157.07206.8500001
ElectronicFunctionality703.74 213.10154.80203.3500001
SatisfactionCustomerSupport686.40 215.95156.53186.3300001
CompanyLoyalty686.53 216.29156.33196.9500000

Aleph

top

Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.

Ratings in all categories were similar to those given last year, though company loyalty showing an increase. Libraries using Aleph have shown a growing loyalty to Ex Libris from 2007 (4.65) through this year (6.63).

73.4 percent of libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Large academic libraries using Aleph gave top ratings for company loyalty (7.42). Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (33), WorldShare Management Services (4), FOLIO (6), Sierra (5) and Koha (2). These statistics point to a trend that a large portion of libraries now using Aleph will stay within the Ex Libris fold and eventually move to Alma.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

ALEPH 500allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS645.84 215.67105.30125.2541101
ILSFunctionality645.41 215.24105.00124.0841101
PrintFunctionality637.11 206.70107.00127.3341101
ElectronicFunctionality633.51 213.29103.20122.8331101
SatisfactionCustomerSupport625.95 195.42105.50126.0841101
CompanyLoyalty646.63 216.19106.60127.4241101

OCLC company profile

OCLC

top

OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service and supports a variety of ILS products acquired from other companies. This year 109 libraries using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey.

WorldShare Management Services

top

A total of 109 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) all responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries, except for 5 special libraries, 4 public libraries, and 1 consortium.

WorldShare Management Services did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic library tables. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS saw its most favorable ratings for its management of electronic resources (6.07), second only to Alma (6.50).

From 2012 through 2014 ratings for WorldShare Management Services gradually increased, but have since declined. Scores this year saw little difference from those given in 2017. Although the graph of perception scores reflect a decrease since its intital introduction, the values in recent years are similar to those of Ex Libris Alma.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1096.56 486.96275.9385.5030001
ILSFunctionality1096.51 486.96276.1984.7530001
PrintFunctionality1097.10 487.48276.6386.3830001
ElectronicFunctionality1096.49 486.69276.0786.3830001
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1066.69 466.96276.0486.3830001
CompanyLoyalty1076.45 477.04275.6385.3830001

SirsiDynix company profile

SirsiDynix

top

SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.

This year 473 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2017: 531, 2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 100 libraries using Horizon and 31 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 604 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey

Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008, but have improved every year since. Looking at this trend demonstrates that while there may be negative fallout following a business event, that a company can work to improve its perceptions over time. The ownership of SirsiDynix changed again in December 2014 with its acquisition by ICV Partners. This first year since that transition saw continued movement upward in perceptions scores for Symphony, a slight dip in scores for Horizon, and a sharp rise in perceptions ratings for EOS.Web.

Symphony

top

SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.

Large academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (6.75), as did large public libraries (7.41). Symphony received second-highest scores among large public libraries for general satisfaction (7.06), overall ILS functionality (6.66), print resource management (7.04), electronic resource management (6.00), and company loyalty (6.89).

18.5 percent of libraries (89 out of 481 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 43 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Alma (40), WorldShare Management Services (13), Koha (8), Polaris (8), FOLIO (8), and Evergreen (2). 4 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.

SirsiDynix Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4736.77 675.94406.78126.251726.99756.97227.09137.46256.80
ILSFunctionality4716.72 676.09406.55125.581716.99756.88226.77137.38256.76
PrintFunctionality4717.13 676.84407.50126.831727.01757.21217.43137.69247.71
ElectronicFunctionality4605.65 664.42395.00114.821686.12735.96206.40135.85256.16
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4627.08 656.83397.21126.751666.89747.36227.55137.69257.68
CompanyLoyalty4596.40 665.17385.84124.921676.55727.06227.09127.08237.39

Horizon

top

Libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), continue to show less interest in changing systems, apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term. Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, is the only legacy system showing decreased numbers in libraries considering migrating to a new system (see selection/deselection report). This year 35 out of 100 (35%) responses indicated interest in change, and dramaticly less than in 2008 when 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. Of those libraries indicating interest in mmoving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Polaris (7), Sierra (3), Alma (8), WorldShare Management Services (3), Symphony (4), Koha (6), and FOLIO (3).

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS996.28 146.3696.003236.52276.4186.8815
ILSFunctionality996.00 146.2195.893236.30275.9386.5015
PrintFunctionality966.99 147.5087.633226.91266.6287.1315
ElectronicFunctionality944.50 134.0893.443215.19264.8884.5015
SatisfactionCustomerSupport957.14 147.7997.223207.00277.3377.2915
CompanyLoyalty976.31 145.5096.563216.38276.6787.2515

EOS.Web

top

EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 33 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been erratic across the annual editions of the survey. This year, results in all categories were sharply down over those seen last year, which were significantly higher than the previous year.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

EOS.WeballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS316.97 50000010
ILSFunctionality317.13 50000010
PrintFunctionality307.07 50000010
ElectronicFunctionality305.80 50000010
SatisfactionCustomerSupport317.32 50000010
CompanyLoyalty316.16 50000010

The Library Corporation company profile

The Library Corporation

top

The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 87 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 16 for libraries using Carl.X.

Library.Solution

top

Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries performed best in the mid-sized public library arena, from whom it received somewhat higher ratings than those given by small public libraries. Mid-sized public libraries gave top ratings to Library.Solution for its support for electronic resources (6.43). Ratings in all categories have declined for Library.Solution in the last two years. Libraries using Library.Solution give higher ratings for support (7.54) than for the other categories and overall satisfaction was higher this year than the 2017 ratings. 19 out of the 88 respnoses (21.6%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS876.99 95.5630506.9697.220117.180
ILSFunctionality876.86 95.7830506.7897.330116.820
PrintFunctionality867.37 96.4430497.4596.890117.270
ElectronicFunctionality866.43 84.6330506.4097.110116.450
SatisfactionCustomerSupport877.34 96.4430507.2897.440117.550
CompanyLoyalty856.67 84.7530506.5697.670117.000

Carl.X

top

Carl.X (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 16 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X were substantially higher in 2016 commpared to those given in 2015, but declined somewhat the last two years. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation thier highest scores for company loyalty and lowest for support for electronic resources.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

Carl.XallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS166.31 00035412
ILSFunctionality166.31 00035412
PrintFunctionality166.63 00035412
ElectronicFunctionality155.47 00035312
SatisfactionCustomerSupport165.81 00035412
CompanyLoyalty166.94 00035412

Biblionix company profile

Biblionix

top

Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 112 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

Apollo

top

Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections. Apollo was the top performer among small public librariesin most categories: general satisfaction (8.52), overall functionality (8.26), print resource management (8.18), electronic resource management (7.76), customer support (8.63), and company loyalty (8.63). It led the rankings among very small public libraries for every category: general satisfaction (8.55), overall ILS functionality (8.35), print resource management (8.15), electronic resource management (7.91), customer support (8.64), and company loyalty (8.37). This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. Within the realm of small and very small public libraries, Apollo has exceptionally happy customers.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

ApolloallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1128.44 0001098.440001
ILSFunctionality1128.28 0001098.280001
PrintFunctionality1118.20 0001088.200001
ElectronicFunctionality1107.94 0001077.950001
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1098.51 0001068.540001
CompanyLoyalty1108.45 0001078.450001

Book Systems company profile

Book Systems, Inc.

top

Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.

Atriuum

This year 101 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; 86 were from small public libraries, 6 from schools, and one from an academic library. The company earned its strongest ratings in customer support (8.09); Since 2007 ratings across categories have been improving steadily.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

AtriuumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1017.90 100847.962068.831
ILSFunctionality1017.71 100847.792068.501
PrintFunctionality1017.97 100848.022068.331
ElectronicFunctionality916.77 100776.782067.671
SatisfactionCustomerSupport988.09 100828.122068.171
CompanyLoyalty997.60 100837.652058.801

Civica company profile

Civica

top

Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.

Spydus

top

This year 54 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and all but one from outside the United States. Of the 54 libraries responding, 7 (12.96%)indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. Ratings have declined somewhat for the last two years.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

SpydusallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS546.72 410307.03126.42200
ILSFunctionality546.70 410306.93126.67200
PrintFunctionality546.96 410306.87126.92200
ElectronicFunctionality535.49 410295.97125.08200
SatisfactionCustomerSupport545.93 410306.43125.17200
CompanyLoyalty536.30 410306.87116.18200

Koha logo

Koha

top

Support providerResponsesGeneral Satisfaction
All Installations2537.66
ByWater Solutions1287.77
Independent378.03
LibLime67.17
PTFS Europe198021
BibLibre3--
Catalyst4--
Kobli 3--
Equinox3--
Interleaf Technology11--

Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.

As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 254 libraries using Koha responded to the survey. Libraries of all types use Koha, reflected in this year’s responses:

  • Consortium: 4
  • School: 8
  • Large Academic: 1
  • Medium Academic: 11
  • Small Academic: 63
  • Large Public: 0
  • Medium Public: 11
  • Small Public: 77

When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been generally rising since 2011. Scores saw a sharp peak in 2010, while 2008 and 2009 were much lower than previous or subsequent years.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2537.66 637.37117.641777.95117.45087.384
ILSFunctionality2527.42 637.13116.911777.70117.00086.884
PrintFunctionality2467.80 627.50118.091758.11117.55087.504
ElectronicFunctionality2336.30 625.82115.550706.77115.73086.134
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2437.73 627.55117.181758.03108.30076.864
CompanyLoyalty2467.48 637.44117.181777.90117.73067.834

ByWater Solutions company profile

ByWater Solutions

top

Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown of the 129 responses included 72 public libraries, 34 academics, 4 consortia, and 4 schools.

ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries for overall satisfaction (7.53), satisfaction with customer support (8.54), and company loyalty (7.60). Among small public libraries Koha with support from ByWater Solutions was given top ratings for print functionality (8.18). ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among small academic libraries. 92.3 percent of its clients reported that their system was implemented on schedule. When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater saw diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a significant improvement since that year. Company loyalty ratings were significantly higher than last year.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

Koha -- ByWater SolutionsallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1287.77 307.6321637.9587.50044
ILSFunctionality1277.46 307.3721637.7087.00044
PrintFunctionality1267.92 307.7721628.1387.63044
ElectronicFunctionality1206.56 305.9720606.8286.38044
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1248.09 297.9321618.0878.43044
CompanyLoyalty1277.92 307.9321637.9287.25034

Evergreen

top

Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 82 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 60 were from public libraries, 7 from academics, and 4 from consortia.= (see charts for library type and library size). Among small public libraries, Evergreen received the higher ratings for its print functionality (7.42) than for functionality for electronic resources (6.50).

Most libraries using Evergreen rely on Equinox Software for hosting and support services, with a minority of implementations operate without commercially-povided support services.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS826.80 76.4300477.11116.73104
ILSFunctionality816.68 76.1400467.04116.45104
PrintFunctionality827.00 76.7100477.17116.82104
ElectronicFunctionality815.38 74.1400475.81114.91104
SatisfactionCustomerSupport797.51 76.4300457.93117.73103
CompanyLoyalty767.03 56.8000467.07117.45102

Follett company profile

Follett School Solutions

top

Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with around 70 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a fraction of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.

Destiny

top

Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year 204 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 158 from schools and 31 from small public libraries (full product report and narrative comments). It is not surprising that school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public libraries. The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.81 and 6.47 for publics. This product was seen as weakest in functionality for electronic resources (all responses: 6.48; schools: 6.90). Destiny has seen steadily rising scores in the survey since 2010, with a spike in 2013. This year, scores were similar to those given in 1017 except for a drop in company loyalty ratings.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

DestinyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2017.46 66.1700306.47001567.812
ILSFunctionality2007.38 66.3300306.03001557.792
PrintFunctionality1997.81 67.6700306.47001548.172
ElectronicFunctionality1956.48 66.3300284.71001526.902
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1987.59 66.3300306.50001537.882
CompanyLoyalty1937.01 65.1700285.25001507.512

OPALS logo

OPALS

top

The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 342 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 205 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 16 from consortia, 10 from small public libraries, and 30 from small academic libraries.

OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.92), ILS functionality (8.91), print functionality (8.95), electronic resource functionality (8.30), and company loyalty (8.79). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries, though the number of responses was smaller than those from other products.

The following table presents the 2018 survey results by library type and size

OPALSallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3428.92 168.691098.89002058.92168.94
ILSFunctionality3408.88 168.441098.78002048.91168.94
PrintFunctionality3398.93 168.751098.78002038.95168.88
ElectronicFunctionality2868.22 137.691087.50001948.30137.77
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3418.91 168.811098.89002058.93169.00
CompanyLoyalty3408.78 168.690098.67002058.79168.81

FOLO

FOLIO

top

FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data, and with the Open Library Environment providing community engagement and educational activities. See EBSCO Supports New Open Source Project published by American Libraries for further information on FOLIO.

Still in its development phase, the software is not yet complete and no libraries have yet implemented it in production. The results of this survey do provide some indicators for the level of interest for FOLIO. Of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new automation system, 65 mentioned FOLIO as a candidate. FOLIO was publicly announced in April of 2016. When specifically asked which open source products may be of interest, regardless of active plans to migrate, 151 mentioned FOLIO, 205 mentioned Koha, and 66 mentioned Evergreen. FOLIO was mentioned 16 times in narrative comments.


Selected Statistical Tables

Emphasis on Peer Groups

top

Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

Public Libraries

top

Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2018)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 1 3 13 12 5 77.207 1.35
Symphony47 2 3 8 15 15 4 77.067 1.17
Horizon18 1 1 4 6 4 2 76.897 1.89
Sierra28 3 2 5 3 6 7 2 75.296 1.13
All Responses159 4 4 8 15 24 50 38 16 76.727 0.32

Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 1 2 3 9 17 2 87.148 1.35
Symphony47 1 1 5 11 18 10 1 76.667 1.02
Horizon18 1 1 4 3 5 3 1 76.227 1.41
Sierra28 1 1 3 4 2 7 7 3 65.466 1.13
All Responses159 2 2 6 8 17 32 45 39 8 76.497 0.40

Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 1 11 15 7 87.578 1.35
Symphony46 2 2 7 10 21 4 87.048 1.18
Horizon18 1 2 2 7 5 1 76.677 0.00
Sierra28 1 3 2 1 4 11 5 1 76.217 1.32
All Responses157 6 1 3 5 7 15 45 54 21 86.967 0.32

Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 1 3 1 11 9 8 1 66.297 1.01
Symphony45 1 2 1 3 6 11 15 4 2 76.006 1.19
Sierra25 1 3 5 3 1 8 3 1 64.685 1.40
Horizon18 1 8 4 1 2 1 1 34.615 0.71
All Responses153 4 2 8 15 12 19 35 35 14 9 65.586 0.40

Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2018)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony46 1 3 5 12 14 11 87.418 1.33
Horizon17 3 1 4 4 5 97.418 1.70
Polaris35 2 1 4 3 10 7 8 76.777 1.18
Sierra28 1 5 2 6 4 3 1 6 33.794 0.94
All Responses157 1 8 2 7 10 12 16 42 28 31 76.547 0.48

Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris35 1 1 1 3 2 7 12 8 86.948 1.35
Symphony46 1 2 1 1 4 5 12 8 12 76.897 1.33
Horizon18 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 5 96.617 1.65
Sierra27 4 2 2 2 5 4 2 4 2 44.004 0.77
All Responses157 7 3 6 6 10 14 11 33 32 35 96.447 0.24

Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions15 2 5 4 4 77.538 2.32
Polaris76 1 3 7 30 24 11 77.387 1.03
Spydus20 1 2 4 7 3 3 76.907 1.34
Symphony104 1 2 5 2 3 12 39 32 8 76.887 0.69
Library.Solution28 1 1 2 3 10 8 3 76.867 1.32
Sierra75 2 2 5 2 20 26 16 2 76.437 0.69
Horizon29 1 1 1 1 5 8 8 2 2 65.976 1.67
All Responses418 3 1 8 11 15 25 66 142 105 42 76.807 0.39

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris74 1 2 9 25 29 8 87.368 1.05
Koha -- ByWater Solutions15 2 2 6 3 2 77.077 2.07
Spydus20 1 5 6 7 1 87.057 1.34
Symphony104 1 1 3 2 6 15 37 32 7 76.897 0.69
Library.Solution28 1 1 2 2 4 9 5 4 76.647 1.13
Sierra75 2 2 1 3 7 12 29 17 2 76.417 0.69
Horizon29 1 3 5 11 7 2 65.766 1.49
All Responses417 3 2 5 9 14 33 68 141 108 34 76.777 0.39

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris75 1 4 14 41 15 87.808 1.04
Koha -- ByWater Solutions15 2 3 5 5 87.738 2.32
Symphony104 2 1 1 4 13 27 40 16 87.288 0.78
Library.Solution28 1 1 2 9 10 5 87.258 1.32
Sierra75 1 1 1 3 5 6 20 30 8 87.058 0.58
Horizon28 2 1 8 10 6 1 76.717 1.51
Spydus20 3 1 1 4 8 3 86.408 1.79
All Responses416 10 1 1 5 11 20 41 99 160 68 87.198 0.39

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Library.Solution28 1 1 1 3 2 3 6 7 4 86.437 1.13
Koha -- ByWater Solutions15 2 2 3 5 2 1 76.407 1.81
Polaris74 1 2 3 2 11 20 18 11 6 66.276 1.05
Symphony100 3 1 6 2 8 10 18 29 12 11 76.077 0.80
Spydus20 1 1 2 2 4 1 6 3 75.356 0.67
Sierra75 6 3 4 9 13 16 16 7 1 65.236 0.46
Horizon27 2 6 1 2 5 6 3 2 24.565 1.54
All Responses410 19 7 21 18 33 59 77 96 52 28 75.696 0.40

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 4 8 98.549 2.50
Symphony102 2 3 2 4 1 8 30 25 27 77.228 0.89
Horizon27 1 2 4 8 6 6 77.157 1.73
Library.Solution28 1 1 1 2 1 7 9 6 87.078 1.51
Polaris75 1 1 4 4 10 8 17 18 12 86.677 0.81
Spydus20 1 1 1 2 2 3 6 3 1 75.857 0.67
Sierra74 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 21 6 2 75.496 0.58
All Responses410 4 9 10 15 20 28 53 98 87 86 76.757 0.35

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions15 1 1 1 5 7 97.608 2.32
Symphony102 2 1 2 7 3 6 8 23 28 22 86.857 0.59
Spydus19 2 3 3 1 7 3 86.798 1.15
Polaris73 3 3 3 10 9 16 19 10 86.567 0.59
Horizon28 2 1 1 1 3 3 4 7 6 86.507 1.70
Library.Solution28 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 6 6 76.467 1.32
Sierra74 4 3 2 2 15 12 16 9 11 76.016 0.58
All Responses410 14 7 9 15 15 46 44 76 94 90 86.637 0.25

Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo42 1 3 10 28 98.529 1.39
Koha -- ByWater Solutions39 2 7 14 16 98.138 1.44
Atriuum38 3 4 6 12 13 97.748 1.30
AGent VERSO42 1 3 1 3 13 12 9 77.298 1.08
Polaris60 2 1 2 1 7 12 25 10 87.238 1.03
Spydus15 1 3 5 6 87.077 2.07
Library.Solution21 1 2 4 5 6 3 87.007 1.53
Symphony67 1 1 1 2 1 5 9 24 15 8 76.757 0.86
Sierra43 1 1 5 4 11 7 9 5 66.406 0.61
All Responses440 2 3 3 10 15 22 49 100 134 102 87.268 0.38

Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo42 1 2 3 15 21 98.269 1.23
Koha -- ByWater Solutions39 1 2 8 18 10 87.878 1.44
Polaris60 3 2 5 16 22 12 87.428 1.03
Atriuum38 1 4 4 9 11 9 87.348 1.14
AGent VERSO42 2 1 6 13 12 8 77.337 1.08
Library.Solution21 1 1 3 8 6 2 77.057 1.53
Spydus15 2 2 6 4 1 77.007 2.07
Symphony66 1 3 1 2 5 8 18 15 13 76.867 0.86
Sierra43 1 4 5 6 13 10 4 76.677 0.76
All Responses438 1 5 10 10 33 45 111 132 91 87.238 0.33

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions39 1 1 3 14 20 98.189 0.96
Apollo41 1 1 2 1 11 25 98.159 1.41
Atriuum38 5 5 17 11 87.898 1.14
Spydus15 1 5 7 2 87.678 2.07
Polaris60 1 1 1 3 2 8 29 15 87.628 1.03
Library.Solution20 1 1 1 5 8 4 87.508 1.57
AGent VERSO42 1 2 3 3 12 15 6 87.178 0.77
Sierra42 2 1 2 5 7 8 12 5 86.647 0.62
Symphony67 3 3 3 3 4 8 12 19 12 86.557 0.98
All Responses435 6 6 9 11 20 38 78 148 119 87.388 0.34

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo41 1 2 4 4 14 16 97.768 1.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions37 1 2 5 5 8 8 8 76.977 0.99
Library.Solution21 3 1 1 5 2 7 2 86.487 1.31
Spydus14 1 3 2 6 2 76.367 1.87
AGent VERSO38 2 1 3 2 4 6 6 10 4 86.137 1.46
Atriuum34 3 1 2 1 5 3 3 11 5 86.127 1.20
Polaris60 4 2 2 3 2 6 4 18 13 6 76.027 0.90
Symphony66 3 2 4 3 7 5 10 16 11 5 75.716 0.98
Sierra42 2 2 3 7 7 5 8 6 2 75.316 0.62
All Responses422 18 11 11 20 31 46 53 87 91 54 86.137 0.34

Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo41 1 1 2 4 33 98.639 1.41
Koha -- ByWater Solutions38 1 2 7 7 21 98.189 1.46
Atriuum37 1 1 3 5 8 19 97.819 1.48
AGent VERSO42 1 1 1 2 7 15 15 87.678 1.23
Library.Solution21 2 1 3 3 3 9 97.388 1.53
Polaris59 1 2 1 3 6 8 13 14 11 86.787 1.04
Spydus15 1 1 1 2 5 5 76.607 1.81
Symphony64 1 1 4 3 4 8 6 12 11 14 96.387 1.13
Sierra42 2 1 1 7 9 8 8 5 1 55.556 0.62
All Responses432 2 5 9 12 20 35 37 76 93 143 97.178 0.43

Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo41 1 3 5 32 98.639 1.41
Koha -- ByWater Solutions39 1 2 2 4 7 23 98.059 1.44
Atriuum37 1 3 1 2 7 7 16 97.388 0.33
Spydus15 1 1 1 6 6 76.937 1.81
AGent VERSO41 1 1 1 3 2 4 11 6 12 96.887 1.09
Library.Solution21 2 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 96.768 1.75
Polaris59 3 3 3 2 8 2 12 12 14 96.467 1.17
Symphony63 3 1 2 1 6 8 5 9 12 16 96.437 1.13
Sierra41 1 4 2 4 8 5 2 9 6 85.856 0.62
All Responses429 17 5 16 8 19 37 30 70 80 147 96.898 0.10

Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo61 1 6 18 36 98.469 0.90
Atriuum42 1 1 1 3 10 26 98.269 1.39
Polaris46 1 2 2 11 14 16 97.728 1.33
Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 1 6 2 7 97.718 1.70
AGent VERSO71 1 1 1 1 6 14 31 16 87.598 0.95
Symphony47 3 3 18 14 9 77.497 1.02
Sierra34 1 3 4 11 12 3 87.037 1.20
Destiny18 1 3 5 3 4 2 66.617 1.18
All Responses404 2 2 3 4 15 29 92 121 136 97.708 0.40

Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo61 2 6 22 31 98.349 0.90
Atriuum42 1 1 5 9 26 98.269 1.39
AGent VERSO71 1 1 1 1 4 16 32 15 87.618 0.95
Polaris46 1 1 4 1 10 14 15 97.578 1.33
Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 6 5 5 77.538 1.70
Symphony47 1 4 7 8 17 10 87.408 0.88
Sierra34 1 1 6 7 15 4 87.248 1.37
Destiny18 3 1 1 6 4 2 1 65.946 0.94
All Responses404 2 4 4 10 13 29 81 133 128 87.628 0.40

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo61 1 2 7 18 33 98.239 0.90
Koha -- ByWater Solutions16 1 6 9 98.139 2.00
Atriuum42 1 1 1 4 8 27 98.129 1.39
AGent VERSO69 1 2 4 14 31 17 87.748 0.84
Polaris43 1 2 4 7 17 12 87.708 1.37
Symphony47 1 5 4 11 12 14 97.478 1.17
Sierra33 2 2 1 11 10 7 77.158 0.87
Destiny18 1 2 1 2 2 5 2 3 76.177 1.18
All Responses396 4 3 1 4 6 14 20 76 123 145 97.718 0.40

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo60 2 2 9 20 27 98.138 0.90
Atriuum39 1 1 3 2 1 5 8 18 97.448 1.12
Polaris45 1 1 6 4 6 12 15 97.368 1.34
AGent VERSO66 3 1 1 3 4 6 10 30 8 86.898 0.98
Symphony46 2 2 3 5 5 9 9 11 96.677 0.88
Koha -- ByWater Solutions16 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 96.637 2.00
Sierra34 3 2 2 4 4 7 7 5 76.127 0.86
Destiny16 1 2 1 2 4 1 3 2 54.815 1.25
All Responses386 14 4 5 7 18 31 32 67 109 99 86.968 0.41

Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo59 5 15 39 98.589 0.91
Atriuum41 1 1 2 9 28 98.399 1.41
AGent VERSO71 1 1 1 1 3 11 26 27 97.878 0.83
Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 1 2 6 7 97.658 1.94
Polaris43 1 2 3 2 7 13 15 97.518 1.37
Symphony46 1 1 4 3 12 13 12 87.398 1.18
Sierra34 1 1 2 4 6 7 7 6 76.657 1.37
Destiny18 3 3 3 3 3 3 46.507 1.18
All Responses395 3 4 1 2 11 20 21 58 106 169 97.748 0.40

Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo60 1 2 7 14 36 98.379 0.90
Atriuum42 2 2 1 1 4 6 26 97.839 1.23
Koha -- ByWater Solutions17 1 1 2 1 2 10 97.599 2.18
AGent VERSO69 2 2 2 7 4 14 21 17 87.138 0.84
Symphony46 1 1 4 6 7 9 9 9 76.727 1.03
Polaris43 3 2 1 7 3 8 8 11 96.497 1.37
Sierra32 1 1 4 4 7 4 8 3 86.226 1.41
Destiny16 1 1 4 1 4 3 2 45.386 1.25
All Responses391 10 2 7 3 17 31 35 61 85 140 97.238 0.35

All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo109 1 2 11 29 66 98.449 0.67
Atriuum86 1 4 7 11 23 40 97.958 0.86
Koha -- ByWater Solutions71 1 2 3 18 20 27 97.908 1.07
Libero13 1 1 2 7 2 87.628 1.39
Evergreen -- Independent22 1 1 4 13 3 87.598 1.49
Polaris231 1 2 1 3 3 9 17 69 79 47 87.408 0.59
AGent VERSO121 1 4 4 4 9 28 45 26 87.388 0.45
Library.Solution61 1 2 2 2 9 19 16 10 77.077 0.90
Symphony276 2 1 3 7 6 16 34 99 77 31 76.977 0.36
Spydus46 2 5 11 15 10 3 76.767 1.18
Horizon58 1 1 2 1 7 14 17 8 7 76.527 1.18
Destiny30 1 2 5 6 6 7 3 86.477 0.91
Evergreen -- Equinox Software29 2 4 2 3 7 9 2 86.457 1.30
Sierra184 4 6 3 15 13 41 52 39 11 76.347 0.52
Carl.X13 1 1 1 6 2 2 66.236 1.66
All Responses1469 7 6 18 28 46 81 173 395 407 308 87.187 0.10

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo109 1 5 10 39 54 98.288 0.67
Atriuum86 1 1 5 6 16 21 36 97.788 0.75
Koha -- ByWater Solutions71 1 3 4 20 26 17 87.628 1.07
Evergreen -- Independent22 1 1 1 4 11 4 87.558 1.49
AGent VERSO121 1 2 4 3 11 30 46 24 87.428 0.55
Polaris229 2 1 4 2 10 20 61 88 41 87.408 0.59
Libero14 1 2 6 4 1 77.077 1.60
Symphony274 2 4 5 7 21 42 83 76 34 76.957 0.42
Library.Solution61 1 2 4 3 7 21 12 11 76.937 0.90
Spydus46 3 3 11 16 11 2 76.767 1.18
Sierra184 3 3 1 6 11 16 31 57 46 10 76.477 0.59
Carl.X13 1 2 3 3 3 1 66.317 1.66
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 1 1 1 1 4 4 8 6 2 76.297 1.13
Horizon58 2 3 2 11 14 15 7 4 76.166 1.05
Destiny30 1 4 1 3 8 6 5 2 66.036 0.73
All Responses1465 6 9 13 31 44 100 178 388 424 272 87.127 0.13

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS Support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo106 1 1 1 8 20 75 98.549 0.68
Evergreen -- Independent21 1 1 9 10 98.198 1.75
Atriuum84 2 1 4 7 21 49 98.139 0.98
Koha -- ByWater Solutions68 1 1 1 2 10 17 36 98.129 1.09
AGent VERSO120 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 18 43 45 97.768 0.55
Libero14 1 1 3 3 6 97.718 1.07
Library.Solution61 1 3 1 4 5 11 15 21 97.368 0.90
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 1 1 1 1 3 4 6 11 97.328 1.70
Horizon54 1 2 6 6 13 13 13 77.207 1.22
Symphony269 1 4 8 5 10 19 24 68 64 66 77.057 0.30
Polaris225 1 4 3 6 13 19 23 50 57 49 86.937 0.47
Destiny30 1 1 3 5 5 4 4 7 96.507 0.91
Carl.X13 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 76.317 1.94
Spydus46 1 1 2 6 6 7 14 8 1 76.007 1.03
Sierra182 5 10 7 13 19 24 33 43 19 9 75.456 0.59
All Responses1440 12 26 23 36 63 100 132 284 325 439 97.138 0.16

Academic Libraries

top

Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2018)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma80 1 1 4 4 13 37 20 76.707 0.67
Symphony12 2 3 5 1 1 76.257 1.44
ALEPH 50012 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 65.256 1.15
Sierra47 3 1 1 3 6 9 10 9 5 65.196 1.02
Voyager20 1 2 3 4 7 3 65.156 0.67
All Responses203 3 3 7 9 21 25 43 60 31 1 75.856 0.21

Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma80 1 1 1 4 2 22 27 21 1 76.637 0.67
Sierra47 2 6 5 7 7 13 4 3 75.686 1.02
Symphony12 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 55.586 0.87
Voyager20 6 2 5 6 1 34.705 0.67
ALEPH 50012 1 2 1 2 3 3 54.085 0.58
All Responses203 5 9 19 18 26 45 47 29 5 75.706 0.21

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50012 1 1 6 1 3 77.337 1.73
Sierra47 1 2 1 5 13 17 8 87.308 1.17
Alma79 1 3 6 13 28 23 5 76.927 0.79
Voyager20 2 4 8 5 1 76.857 1.57
Symphony12 2 2 5 2 1 76.837 1.73
All Responses201 1 1 1 9 10 29 71 57 22 77.057 0.49

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma79 1 1 1 3 3 15 30 20 5 76.737 0.68
Sierra47 2 3 4 3 10 5 8 9 2 1 44.705 1.02
Voyager20 1 3 2 6 2 2 4 33.353 0.89
ALEPH 50012 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 22.833 0.58
All Responses200 7 13 14 18 18 20 34 44 25 7 75.216 0.28

Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony12 2 1 2 2 3 2 86.757 2.31
Voyager18 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 86.337 1.41
ALEPH 50012 1 2 4 2 1 2 66.086 1.73
Alma80 2 1 4 4 4 10 22 19 9 5 65.866 0.67
Sierra48 4 2 6 3 5 9 8 10 1 74.465 1.01
All Responses203 7 7 12 11 20 27 42 41 25 11 65.506 0.42

Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
ALEPH 50012 1 2 1 3 5 97.428 0.87
Voyager19 1 1 2 3 4 3 5 96.957 1.84
Alma80 2 1 1 3 6 8 8 18 18 15 76.617 0.45
Symphony12 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 74.926 1.44
Sierra48 5 3 4 4 4 13 2 6 6 1 54.485 0.87
All Responses204 13 6 13 10 20 30 16 34 35 27 85.636 0.56

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony42 1 3 6 8 10 7 7 76.717 0.77
Alma97 2 4 10 25 32 21 3 76.617 0.30
WorldShare Management Services27 1 2 1 2 4 3 8 4 2 75.937 1.35
Voyager15 1 3 8 2 1 65.876 1.29
Sierra74 3 6 5 3 10 13 20 12 2 75.696 0.81
Millennium15 2 3 1 5 3 1 54.475 1.29
All Responses322 3 1 11 17 17 45 68 82 58 20 76.196 0.39

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma97 1 5 17 14 36 21 3 76.597 0.41
Symphony42 1 3 2 5 7 10 9 5 76.507 0.93
WorldShare Management Services27 1 2 2 4 5 6 4 3 76.196 1.35
Sierra74 2 3 4 6 15 10 16 15 3 75.926 0.81
Voyager15 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 65.676 1.55
Millennium15 1 4 1 5 2 2 54.735 1.29
All Responses322 2 7 22 21 53 55 83 62 17 76.187 0.39

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony42 1 1 2 1 12 14 11 87.508 1.08
Sierra74 1 1 2 3 14 14 29 10 87.148 0.81
Voyager15 5 6 2 2 77.077 1.55
Alma97 1 1 1 3 6 19 33 24 9 76.877 0.10
Millennium15 1 3 2 4 3 2 76.737 1.81
WorldShare Management Services27 1 1 1 1 1 4 7 8 3 86.637 1.54
All Responses321 4 3 6 6 16 48 84 102 52 87.147 0.39

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma96 3 1 5 19 9 28 29 2 86.507 0.20
WorldShare Management Services27 1 2 1 3 1 4 8 4 3 76.077 1.54
Symphony41 3 2 4 4 4 3 6 6 6 3 65.026 0.31
Voyager15 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 44.805 0.52
Sierra72 4 6 6 7 5 12 13 11 6 2 64.725 0.71
Millennium15 1 2 5 3 3 1 33.673 1.03
All Responses318 12 17 25 23 29 40 40 64 55 13 75.346 0.34

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony41 1 2 1 2 4 9 10 12 97.228 1.25
Voyager15 1 2 3 5 3 1 76.537 2.07
WorldShare Management Services27 2 1 3 2 2 3 5 2 7 96.047 1.35
Alma97 3 4 5 3 21 23 22 15 1 65.816 0.30
Sierra74 9 1 4 7 8 11 10 12 10 2 74.855 0.58
Millennium15 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 54.005 1.29
All Responses321 12 10 11 22 19 46 50 61 55 35 75.886 0.28

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma96 4 2 1 6 9 14 29 19 12 76.497 0.41
Voyager15 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 96.337 2.32
Symphony40 2 3 2 4 4 5 9 5 6 75.887 1.11
WorldShare Management Services27 2 2 3 1 4 1 4 3 7 95.637 1.54
Sierra74 9 8 2 5 4 11 11 14 9 1 74.645 0.81
Millennium15 3 3 2 1 5 1 52.932 0.52
All Responses318 23 16 15 12 17 42 39 66 47 41 75.666 0.39

Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS16 2 1 13 98.699 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 2 7 14 6 87.638 1.28
AGent VERSO15 3 2 5 2 3 77.007 1.55
WorldShare Management Services48 1 3 11 18 12 3 76.967 1.01
Alma76 2 1 3 10 11 31 18 76.537 0.80
Sierra69 1 4 2 10 13 24 8 7 76.437 0.96
Horizon14 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 86.367 2.14
Symphony67 2 3 1 6 3 5 10 20 15 2 75.947 0.86
ALEPH 50021 2 3 3 5 6 2 75.676 1.31
Millennium16 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 55.255 0.75
Voyager22 1 1 2 3 1 4 5 2 2 1 64.865 0.64
All Responses487 6 9 11 17 28 53 69 136 99 59 76.467 0.32

Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS16 1 2 1 12 98.449 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 1 4 7 14 3 87.378 1.10
Alma75 1 3 8 9 23 24 7 87.007 0.81
AGent VERSO15 1 2 2 3 4 3 87.007 1.55
WorldShare Management Services48 1 4 12 15 11 5 76.967 1.15
Sierra69 2 2 7 15 19 14 10 76.877 1.08
Horizon14 1 3 3 1 5 1 86.217 2.14
Symphony67 4 1 6 2 10 9 13 17 5 86.097 0.61
Millennium16 3 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 85.506 0.75
ALEPH 50021 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 75.245 0.65
Voyager22 1 2 3 5 4 2 2 1 2 44.775 0.85
All Responses486 2 6 14 23 27 48 72 114 115 65 86.567 0.23

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS16 1 2 13 98.759 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 3 7 10 9 87.778 1.10
Sierra68 1 3 6 17 25 16 87.578 1.09
Horizon14 1 2 2 6 3 87.508 2.14
WorldShare Management Services48 3 8 11 15 11 87.488 1.01
Alma76 3 4 9 20 29 11 87.298 0.92
AGent VERSO15 1 3 5 3 3 77.277 1.55
Symphony67 2 2 1 3 7 6 10 28 8 86.848 0.86
ALEPH 50020 1 1 3 2 4 7 2 86.707 1.79
Millennium16 1 2 1 2 6 3 1 76.257 0.00
Voyager22 1 3 3 7 1 5 2 66.236 1.28
All Responses484 2 3 6 6 16 35 54 101 160 101 87.218 0.32

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS13 1 1 3 4 4 87.698 2.50
WorldShare Management Services48 1 1 2 4 9 18 9 4 76.697 1.15
Alma76 1 1 1 2 5 10 11 25 15 5 76.387 0.80
AGent VERSO15 2 1 3 6 3 76.077 1.81
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 1 3 4 7 10 3 1 75.976 1.10
Sierra66 4 1 5 5 8 9 15 9 7 3 65.146 0.00
Symphony66 7 7 6 6 5 7 8 10 8 2 74.425 0.62
Millennium16 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 24.254 0.50
Horizon13 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 44.084 0.55
ALEPH 50021 4 2 1 5 2 2 3 2 33.293 0.00
Voyager21 3 3 4 7 3 1 43.104 0.22
All Responses475 27 22 26 32 47 55 71 105 60 30 75.366 0.23

Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS16 1 1 14 98.819 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 1 1 3 10 13 97.938 1.30
Horizon14 1 2 3 8 97.799 2.41
AGent VERSO15 1 1 3 1 2 7 97.538 1.55
WorldShare Management Services46 4 3 7 15 11 6 76.967 1.33
Symphony65 2 4 3 6 4 14 18 14 86.837 0.87
Alma74 2 3 3 6 8 16 17 16 3 76.096 0.93
Voyager21 1 2 2 6 5 5 65.956 1.31
Sierra69 2 3 5 2 3 16 11 13 10 4 55.576 0.72
ALEPH 50019 1 1 1 2 4 4 2 2 2 55.426 1.38
Millennium16 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 2 35.066 0.75
All Responses477 5 10 18 18 31 45 65 87 96 102 96.577 0.32

Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS16 1 3 12 98.699 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 1 4 11 13 97.938 1.28
WorldShare Management Services47 1 1 3 3 7 10 11 11 87.047 1.17
Alma73 4 2 1 2 9 10 10 19 16 86.717 0.82
Voyager21 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 86.298 1.53
ALEPH 50021 2 1 3 3 4 1 7 96.197 0.87
AGent VERSO15 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 95.936 1.55
Horizon14 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 55.507 2.41
Sierra67 8 2 1 5 3 6 13 15 7 7 75.426 1.10
Symphony66 7 5 5 4 2 5 8 14 9 7 75.176 0.74
Millennium16 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 04.695 1.00
All Responses476 35 16 17 18 27 42 49 74 82 116 96.167 0.28

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS30 2 1 27 98.839 1.64
Koha -- Independent13 1 1 1 1 4 5 97.628 2.22
Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 1 1 2 8 16 6 87.508 1.20
AGent VERSO15 3 2 5 2 3 77.007 1.55
Alma258 1 3 3 11 25 49 102 61 3 76.627 0.44
WorldShare Management Services84 1 3 1 4 8 17 29 16 5 76.487 0.76
Symphony122 2 3 1 7 8 14 18 36 23 10 76.257 0.63
Library.Solution12 1 1 2 3 4 1 86.177 2.02
Horizon26 1 1 2 2 3 7 1 7 2 65.926 1.57
Sierra195 6 2 7 12 12 29 38 54 26 9 75.856 0.50
ALEPH 50044 1 2 3 6 8 11 9 4 65.436 0.45
Voyager57 1 1 4 5 4 11 20 7 2 2 65.236 0.40
Millennium44 1 5 5 7 9 9 2 5 1 54.915 0.75
All Responses1043 12 13 29 43 68 124 183 284 193 94 76.307 0.22

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS30 1 2 1 26 98.709 1.64
Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 1 1 1 4 9 15 3 87.218 1.03
Koha -- Independent13 2 1 3 3 4 97.158 2.22
AGent VERSO15 1 2 2 3 4 3 87.007 1.55
Alma257 1 1 3 12 27 45 87 70 11 76.747 0.44
WorldShare Management Services84 1 1 2 5 11 19 22 15 8 76.487 0.76
Sierra195 4 3 13 13 29 34 48 35 16 76.217 0.50
Symphony122 4 2 11 5 18 20 24 27 11 86.187 0.45
Library.Solution12 2 1 2 4 3 76.087 2.02
Horizon26 1 2 3 3 2 4 2 8 1 85.656 1.57
Millennium44 6 7 4 10 6 3 6 2 55.055 0.75
Voyager57 1 3 10 8 11 15 4 2 3 64.985 0.40
ALEPH 50044 1 5 6 8 7 8 5 3 1 44.825 0.45
All Responses1042 2 13 30 66 66 128 175 247 213 102 76.317 0.22

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS30 1 2 27 98.879 1.64
Koha -- Independent13 1 2 5 5 87.928 2.22
Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 1 1 3 8 12 9 87.658 1.03
Horizon25 2 3 5 7 8 97.568 1.60
Sierra194 3 1 2 2 7 27 45 73 34 87.328 0.50
AGent VERSO15 1 3 5 3 3 77.277 1.55
WorldShare Management Services84 1 1 1 2 4 16 19 26 14 87.117 0.87
Symphony122 3 2 2 3 11 9 28 44 20 87.078 0.63
Alma257 1 2 4 6 16 42 82 77 27 77.037 0.50
ALEPH 50043 1 2 5 4 12 12 7 76.987 0.46
Library.Solution12 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 86.928 2.02
Millennium43 1 3 4 5 16 9 5 76.777 1.07
Voyager57 1 5 3 16 15 12 5 66.677 0.93
All Responses1037 2 8 10 13 31 61 135 261 324 192 87.197 0.22

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS24 1 1 5 8 9 97.968 1.84
Koha -- Independent13 1 1 1 6 1 3 76.697 2.22
Alma256 2 2 5 6 10 32 36 85 65 13 76.557 0.44
WorldShare Management Services84 1 3 2 6 6 15 28 16 7 76.487 0.87
AGent VERSO15 2 1 3 6 3 76.077 1.81
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 1 1 3 4 7 11 4 1 75.976 1.04
Sierra190 10 10 15 15 24 26 38 30 16 6 64.905 0.44
Symphony119 10 10 10 12 10 14 17 16 14 6 64.675 0.46
Millennium44 4 4 4 8 8 5 5 1 4 1 33.894 0.75
Voyager56 4 7 3 11 13 7 8 2 1 43.644 0.53
Horizon25 3 4 6 1 4 1 2 3 1 23.522 0.40
ALEPH 50044 6 6 7 8 6 3 4 3 1 33.093 0.30
All Responses1021 47 52 65 74 95 116 148 219 149 56 75.376 0.19

All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS30 1 3 26 98.839 1.64
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 1 2 4 11 14 97.888 1.22
AGent VERSO15 1 1 3 1 2 7 97.538 1.55
Horizon26 1 2 5 1 1 5 11 97.238 1.77
Koha -- Independent12 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 97.008 1.44
Library.Solution12 2 1 1 3 5 97.008 2.31
Symphony119 3 4 2 6 9 10 25 32 28 86.978 0.64
WorldShare Management Services82 2 1 4 7 5 11 22 17 13 76.617 0.77
Voyager54 1 2 3 3 4 12 14 13 2 76.247 0.82
Alma256 2 6 11 12 13 40 61 58 43 10 65.956 0.50
ALEPH 50042 2 2 1 1 5 6 9 7 5 4 65.626 0.46
Sierra196 15 6 16 12 16 37 32 35 21 6 55.015 0.36
Millennium44 3 6 3 8 5 5 3 4 5 2 34.204 0.45
All Responses1031 24 27 43 51 70 120 160 192 183 161 76.177 0.16

All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS29 1 4 24 98.799 1.67
Koha -- ByWater Solutions34 1 2 5 11 15 97.888 1.20
Koha -- Independent12 1 1 3 1 6 97.339 2.02
ALEPH 50044 2 1 2 3 6 1 11 5 13 96.647 1.06
Alma253 6 5 5 5 14 26 32 59 57 44 76.617 0.44
Voyager55 3 2 1 2 3 3 7 7 12 15 96.537 1.08
WorldShare Management Services83 3 2 4 3 3 9 10 15 16 18 96.407 0.88
AGent VERSO15 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 95.936 1.55
Horizon26 2 3 2 1 6 1 2 3 6 55.545 1.77
Symphony119 10 6 9 6 8 11 14 26 16 13 75.386 0.55
Sierra194 22 13 8 14 11 31 28 36 22 9 74.885 0.50
Millennium44 7 4 7 8 8 2 2 2 4 43.824 0.30
All Responses1027 71 38 47 40 64 117 106 179 166 199 95.947 0.22

School Libraries

top

School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction (2018)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2018)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS205 1 2 9 193 98.929 0.63
Destiny156 1 1 1 7 10 33 44 59 97.818 0.48
Symphony13 1 1 1 6 4 87.468 2.22
All Responses436 1 1 2 2 3 11 18 45 70 283 98.289 0.38

School Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2018)

top

<

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: School) (2018)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS204 1 1 13 189 98.919 0.63
Destiny155 1 1 2 3 15 28 52 53 97.798 0.48
Symphony13 1 1 1 7 3 87.388 2.22
All Responses434 1 1 2 2 7 5 25 42 83 266 98.229 0.38

School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2018)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS203 2 7 194 98.959 0.63
Destiny154 1 1 9 23 46 74 98.178 0.48
Symphony13 1 1 1 4 6 97.698 2.22
All Responses431 2 1 1 2 4 16 37 68 300 98.439 0.39

School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2018)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS194 1 21 90 82 88.308 0.65
Destiny152 4 5 4 4 13 20 30 32 40 96.907 0.49
Symphony13 1 1 2 2 4 2 1 75.857 1.39
All Responses417 9 1 7 8 4 20 30 66 132 140 97.478 0.24

School Libraries: Company Loyalty (2018)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2018)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS205 1 2 31 171 98.799 0.63
Destiny150 5 1 1 6 7 13 18 31 68 97.518 0.00
Symphony12 1 1 1 2 3 4 97.088 2.02
All Responses425 10 1 1 3 9 13 20 28 75 265 98.039 0.39


An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


ILS Turnover Reports

Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2018 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2018 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2018 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


Details about The Survey

top

The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

  • How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
  • How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
  • How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
  • Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
  • How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
  • How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

view automation survey

Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from libraries.org.

A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB and PUBLIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in libraries.org, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

Statistics

top

To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

  • Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
  • A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
  • The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
  • The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
  • The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
  • The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

  • Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
  • Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.

[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


Caveat

As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.