Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2018: An International Survey of Library Automation

Narrative Comments

This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2018 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.

There were 909 narrative comments given regarding 83 different products:

ABCD

top

This ILS works perfectly for our library (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Absys.Net

top

Actualmente tenemos una interfaz de descubrimiento independiente del SIGB (Summon) (Library type: Art; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Gracias a la comunidad autónoma de la que forma parte nuestro municipio, y a través de un convenio, tenemos acceso al servidor de Consellería en el que se trabaja con el SIGB. Si no existiese este convenio muchas bibliotecas de poblaciones pequeñas no tendrían catálogo electrónico y en red disponible para consulta de usuarios. Y por supuesto se duplicaría el trabajo cómo ocurría antes de la implantación del SIGB. En general son más los beneficios que obtenemos: acceso por internet al SIGB, compartimos datos de lectores, reservas, préstamo interbibliotecario, gestión de lectores, catalogación compartida... (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Accessit Library

top

For us the change to AcessIt has been great. The trainers were lovely and the help centre has improved hugely over the last few years. The developers are very responsive to our suggestions. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We made the switch from Alexandria to Access-it this summer and could not be happier. We are still not fluent users but have found the folks at Access-it to be wonderfully supportive and responsive. Access-it's training is the best we ever had---many of the trainers are former librarians so they understand our needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have just migrated from Musac to AccessIt and are in the process of setting it all up. It has high functionality compared to Musac and the remote support has been fantastic. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


AGent VERSO

top

In the past I have had many issues with this ILS provided, over time they have addressed and resolved these issues. They have improved and continue to improve. They respond respectfully to problems or concerns. They implement changes and they are quick to be responsive. We have almost no down time. For me they have gone from my looking for a new vender to being a vender I'd recommend. That I think is commendable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very satisfied with our current ILS. We migrated 10 years ago to Auto-Graphics and they've released a major update about every second year. They are responsive to library needs, aware of patron needs, and seem to maintain high security practices. No complaints about their product or support, nor are we actively looking for an alternative provider. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

AutoGraphics has excellent front-line help. Everyone we work with in that role responds in short order, knows the product, and is willing to find solutions. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Auto-Graphics has been pretty reliable, but the system feels old and clunky. There are too many steps to complete simple tasks. We've had major projects in our library that have prevented pursuing a different ILS, but it is on our radar for 2019 to investigate options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Agent/Verso no longer provides federated searching of the databases. That is what it was purchased to do. Now each database has to be opened individually because of encrypted logins. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

NCIP is a separate charge from our ILS. I would really like to take advantage of that for our interloans, but not for an additional cost. Also, whatever allows Unique Management to access our records for collection purposes (the most economical way to do it from them) is an additional large charge from Auto-Graphics. If we could afford that module, we wouldn't have to be concerned about people who do not return things! BOTH of these things are as vital as any other part of the system, so I do not understand, nor agree, with them being an addtional charge. Large charge!! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

While customer service for AutoGraphics has been and continues to be excellent, there are still a lot of functionality issues that are unresolved meaning that functionality, especially in the search and statistics areas, still lags behind our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

This is the only system I have ever worked with , so I really can't compare them to another. I do know that we rarely have a problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I rated digital resources low on the survey because we do not add digital resources to our agent-verso catalog for customers. Too cumbersome to keep track of what it owned and deleted by that source. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Options and changes are sometimes difficult to implement. The payment/fine system is TERRIBLE. It is hard to read information, and somethings we are unable to do as other systems can do. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Just started my position 5 months ago. Some of these questions I answered to the best of my knowledge (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We use Verso, they are awesome, and extremely timely and helpful (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sorry, guess I am technology vocabulary challenged. Many of the terms are above my level of technology vocabulary knowledge. I think the improvements in printing...especially the barcode printing...has been super for our library. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Some of the features in this ILS are frustrating. I search for an item and forget I'm not logged in and when I do log in it makes me start my search all over. uh. fix this. Expired patrons-It wont let you select the same date a year later. I have to select the 14th of August and save and then go back in and select 15th of August. fix this. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have worked here less than one year so the majority of your questions I have no answer for in which case I put a zero or a no. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The AG crew is outstanding. We just do not believe we are getting all the functionality the we would like out of our ILS. After a rocky start they have corrected many of the issues that we had in our floating collection system. The customer service has been professional and responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

It's very difficult to get necessary software changes implemented. Inventory in particular is buggy and they haven't responded to our requests for changes. Customer Support is excellent but this does not extend to the developers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)


Agent VERSO

top

Auto-Graphics was quite helpful when we needed help in deleting a large collection. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)


AGent VERSO

top

Extremely dissatisfied with the company's decision to not support the app in the roll out of it's new version. Resources, including time and money, were spent by the library to market the app to have it quickly shut down. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I appreciate the customer service at Auto-Graphics. The majority of the time I call, I get an actual person which is amazing! Everyone that I've spoken with is friendly and polite. Suggestions for improvements are taken in, weighed, and often implemented, which again, is amazing! Thank you for providing excellent customer service! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

For a library of our size and the fact when a new library director comes in and gets very little training, if any at all, it is very user friendly and one is able to find out how to use this software without to much difficulty... (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our largest problem has been that the ILS is through a statewide consortium, but our library does not function as a branch, it is independent of the other libraries in the system. However, when cataloging items, records are sometimes shared. This makes it impossible to edit the item, because as soon as the MARC record is shared between libraries neither has the ability to edit the MARC. This also can cause problems when deleting items, if we delete an item but another library is using that MARC record, the item will show up in our search results as 0 of 0 availability, confusing patrons. Additionally, the AgCat program is a bit old and clunky, making it hard to do original cataloging edits. I am not sure why it is a separate program from the web interface of Verso? (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been very happy with the product we use and wish the State of Ct had continued using this vendor for their Interlibrary Loan. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a very poor library, we do not have extra money for our ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are not currently using Verso's servers. As a result, we are about five updates behind. At the end of January, we will move to their servers and perform an update. I will be able to evaluate their performance more effectively after this move has been made. Currently, they are very helpful in getting ready for the move. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Verso has been awesome at responding when we have hit a wall as to how much we know about the features of Verso and they take the time to walk us through the steps, and then check back later to make sure we don't have more questions! Great service! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Verso is a great product for us. However,the loss of integration with the statewide system is problematical. Also, we are unhappy that Auto-Graphics has chosen to discontinue its mobile app. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Dashboard is very hard to navigate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)


ALEPH 500

top

Aleph is old and everything but with vufind facing the public, we might keep aleph for another decade. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Because we are migrating our data today, I have given answers about our current system. With Alma, we will be going through another library for support. However I joined the email list when I knew this was going forward, and I see people complaining about the timeliness of support. My favorite person at Ex Libris support told me she also works with Alma, but I will no longer have direct access. And Alma doesn't meet some of the needs because we are a membership library, and give more personalized attention to our members, which the new system will make more difficult. Staff here weren't consulted about the change. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] is in the process of migrating to Alma from Aleph. Go live will be July 2019. We are going from "classic primo" to Primo VE so this is also a new implementation, but a change of systems on the backend. The contract is very vanilla, and does not include any enhancements to the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I was more impressed with the Sierra presentation, Alma seemd very similar to Aleph500 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

planned migration to Sierra was aborted; new ITN in progress (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

Wir sind Teilnehmer eines nationalen Konsortialprojekts das sich für den zukünftigen Betrieb mit Alma / Primo entschieden hat. Bei individueller Evaluation wären wir bei EBSCO-Discovery geblieben, und hätten auch Open Source Systeme evaluiert. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are going through ALMA training currently it is well organized and also supported by a [...] support team which is our first resource, no the ALMA team. I feel the ALMA trainers are too deep into the intricacies of the system to explain it to the user and the trainers are not the best presenters on webinars. [...] is doing something called the "guided path " which is helping many of the smaller campuses, such as ours, get this done for a basic implementation. Honestly we do not need all the features of ALMA but I am looking forward to having an updated system that does not require we install a client on our PC's as that can be an issue with IT support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We will be releasing an RFP in the near future for a new ILS. (Library type: Museum; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Member of [...] Library Consortium with centrally managed catalog; small number of specialized physical items and do not use the catalog for electronic resources; decisions about migration would be made with consortium; name of library has changed to "[...] ". (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The ILS is not user-friendly. The interface feels outdated. Finding information about students who have a history of turning in things late or have fines on their accounts is difficult. It should allow customizable options for library needs since one size doesn't fit all for ILS. The lack of training and direct customer support does not coincide in today's world of modernization of communication lines (no text messaging, Twitter support, chat with support team, etc.). Being able to use the ILS in mobile devices would be useful. This ILS also doesn't seem to align very well with a college community servicing multiple campuses since we cannot communicate with one another through the ILS. Waivers should have more than just a comment box, but rather something else that helps to ID the individual who made the waiver, campus they are from, date/time, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Currently in [...] system wide migration process from Aleph to Alma. Anticipated go-live in Summer 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently transitiongig from ALEPH to ALMA with an expected go-live date of July 1, 2019 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We recently conducted an RFP process. Although not the top vendor for some, overall it was decided Ex Libris Alma and Primo VE will provide more opportunities for providing services to our users. The contract was signed in late December. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Discovery interface changing from Endeca to Blacklight in January 2019. [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)


Alexandria

top

I have only been using this system for 2 months because I am new to this library. I will have a better idea of answers next year. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

System is not designed for academic libraries. Features do not work the way they should. When I call about an issue they tell me to submit a suggestion on their site- I do that, but the issue does not get resolved (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are a school and public library, so we appear to have different issues than other school campuses in our district. It also appears to be the same situation when we call our ILS tech support. Some of our problems go unsolved because of our unique situation. Luckily, our school district has an excellent tech support department that helps us work with our specific issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Alma

top

We are in the process of implementing ALMA, currently operating in a test environment. We anticipate going live in July of 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)

We are happy with both Systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not many products that are comparable in the market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Alma Community Zone would be an easy and effective way to manage our electronic resources, however the metadata quality is often poor and updates are not always timely which means we often have to use manual workarounds. The licensing functionality could be improved, for example making it easier to identify and report e-resources with limited simultaneous user access and turnaways to licensed content. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are using Alma for the past year and are still discovering new functionality as we become more and more familiar with the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are in the process of replacing EZProxy with OpenAthens. It would be nice to have more choices for making federated connections to electronic resource platforms. At this time it seems OpenAthens is the only choice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Ex Libris is continually improving the structure of the customer support website. Their documentation is indexed and usually easy to find. They have regular and special webinars about upcoming changes to their products. The support staff are pretty responsive . They support our user community with a developers' web and a place for listservs to live. The user community is very active in sharing solutions to issues. The annual users group meetings provide a wealth of knowledge about how customers are using the products and this information is posted on our websites for users who could not attend. We have regional users groups that connect the people who are not able to get to the annual meetings and Ex Libris works with them to provide support and expertise. Ex Libris will also schedule special webinars to address issues that a regional or institution is having trouble addressing. They aren't perfect, but the company works hard to earn and keep our loyalty. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma and Ex-Libris remain a complete disaster on all levels. We were an early adopter and it was an enormous mistake. I admire institutions (Library of Congress, Columbia University) who've avoided migrating off of Voyager. The "metadata editor" function remains as rudimentary as a hotel reservation system from the early 1990s. The lack of a robust and all-system analytics function is weighing down heavily on our institutions after three or four years of this. There is no improvement to CJK/non-Latin support; in fact, we've run into even more problems with Indic-language materials. As from the very beginning, we work entirely in OCLC Connexion and manage data in Alma through imports and exports, rarely touching the data via Alma because it's awful. I look forward to using the Open Refine API for Alma so I can work with the data while avoiding using any Alma interface at all. I can see that as linked data environments emerge in their very early forms that we can easily get off of this hideous Alma platform and onto an open-source linked-data platform. I would love to see Alma go out of business, which would force us to move to some other system. Any other system would be better than this unmitigated disaster. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

I did not respond to any of these questions because they refer to Alma/Ex Libris. We are still using Innovative; Alma/Ex Libris will be implemented in Fall 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)

Response to questions and problems are often slow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are just now going live with Alma and Primo. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The reporting in analytics is not what people expect and was disappointing for some. It appears to be easy at first but is still daunting unless you use it every day. However, we like that they improve the product by issuing updates every month and accept ideas all year, not just once a year, and implement the popular ideas in their updates. The students like Primo since they have one place to go when starting their assignments. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Ex Libris has proven itself to be a forward-thinking, future-focussed vendor that is willing to listen to feedback from libraries re the development of its products. It has encouraged and supports a strong user community and encourages feedback, input into development planning. Ex Libris is also very transparent in publishing its development roadmaps, and consistently delivers new feature functionality on schedule. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Issues related to scaling for a large institution have lowered some scores. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We just migrated to Alma so we're still learning what we can and cannot do with it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

n/a (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Nuestra biblioteca aún no ha entrado en producción con Alma y Primo, estamos concluyendo el proceso de migración, por tanto nuestros comentarios de la Empresa se basan en la atención del personal de exlibris de la migración no del soporte de mantenimiento. Igualmente nuestras opiniones sobre los productos Alma Y Primo aún no son muy concluyentes porque no hemos entrado en Producción. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma has loads of functionality but too much of it seems to not work as advertised or regresses in unexpected ways. We have a couple of outstanding support cases that have been open for six months regarding a feature we take to be basic functionality and that directly affects patrons. The fact that this hasn't been fixed in six months is, needless to say, incredibly frustrating. There's no point getting excited about shiny new features (that we'll probably never use) when basic discoverability is compromised. We only migrated last Spring and we've already had informal conversations about switching platforms when our contract is up. There are things I like about the platform and I like the vision offered by Ex Libris, but, on the whole, Alma has so far been disappointing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

The Alma system is far too complex for our needs. There are so many features and options that we actually are slowed down by the options. We've shut off nearly all the notifications because patrons were confused and frustrated by the multiple emails for every step of some processes. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

Still too many steps to accomplish basic tasks -- more than there should be. Difficulty in determining where analytics are pulling information from. Need some kind of table to help let you know if the stats you are getting are really what you want. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We have implemented Alma from Ex Libris in 2018. We launched on time but there are aspects of the product which need further development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are part of a consortial implementation of Primo and Alma. We are not happy with the products, but we can't move forward without our consortial leadership taking action. It is clear that Ex Libris isn't working with our consortium as a development partner anymore. Our reported issues are addressed slowly or not at all. One small example of their disconnect: ExL recently rolled out "bursar in" functionality for Alma, but they can't tell me if other customers have implemented it, it's not documented, and it's clear that development tested this outside of an actual operational library with student information system integration. Primo continues to have unacceptable accessibility issues which cause us to be out of compliance with local accessible information technology policies and at risk of lawsuits. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Alma is a bit of a behemoth. There are a lot of options, which means you can do some great things, but it takes a long time to learn what's even possible. Anyone considering this product should plan for a shaky period of figuring things out. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Have been disappointed to not yet see any benefits of the Proquest/Ex Lib acquisition. Still waiting on central knowledge base improvements for example. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've been running Ex Libris Alma and Primo for a year and a half now. When we migrated from Innovative, we chose Ex Libris as our vendor partner due to their leading migration, the quality of the Primo user interface and the technology infrastructure (including built in APIs and integration with patron loads and federated single sign on) which we perceived as greater value. Due to our library being short staffed we have not been able to implement APIs or develop the UI beyond what was implemented during the initial migration, so it's fortunate that we selected a vendor that was able to do a thorough job during the migration project. We do have philosophical concerns about investing so many of our resources in a commercial vendor and we will be following the FOLIO project closely. Open source systems are a better fit with our librarians' expressed values, but we also doubt that we have the technical staffing to maintain, much less contribute to, an open source ILS at this time, even if we paid for a hosting and development service like Bywater. Another lingering concern is that Primo, like all discovery services, falls short of the goal of item-level discovery. Either vendors are not contributing sufficient metadata or they strike exclusive deals with other discovery vendors, leaving our users at a disadvantage. One of my projects this year is to calculate the proportion of our e-resources that are missing from Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

-We have not used ExL for long enough to say whether the customer service has changed in quality. -Customer service is hit or miss. Most technicians are good. Some are terrific. Some are just capable. A frustration is the dependence on Salesforce tickets alone; there seems to be no culture of using "live" support, such as via WebEx or on the phone, etc. This would be helpful, as would a dedicated contact for support. -The rep (B. Cook) who is in charge of Summon support seems good, and interested in pushing through improvements. -Having moved from Innovative/Millennium, we were initially thrilled at all of the well-organized documentation for Alma that is easily accessible on the web. This remains a strong point. With use, though, it is clear that the documentation isn't as helpful as we'd like. A good example is Springshare's documentation, which is generally very plain-language and comprehensible. ExL shines in the organization, upkeep, and scope of their documentation, but would benefit from more examples, more plain language. I have also found a number of errors regarding technical details (not simples typos). To their credit, they fix these immediately. -Worst aspect of Alma is admin of notices (email and SMS). It is very complicated and not intuitive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Availability of a solution for our repository at the time of implementation of Alma and Primo would have improved satisfaction. Some routine functions such as sorting call numbers remain a problem. Support is often slow or unsatisfactory. Otherwise we are reasonably satisfied with the vendor and products mentioned. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ex Libris's Alma/Primo library services platform is very complicated. I am surprised at some of the basic search functions that were available in our previous ILS that are missing from Alma. However, their support and development people are willing to listen to customer requests and have already implemented multiple requests. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just migrated to Alma, so I responded neutrally to most questions. While we're excited about moving to Alma from Millennium, we lack the experience to be able to score the majority of questions above. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We like the Alma/Primo combo, but for full functionality, it really requires someone with API knowledge and app-building skills. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

All of our customer support is through our consortium and not any vendor (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We implemented Alma in late July, one week past our original go-live date. It is much too early for us to really be able to say if it has the functionality needed and how satisfied we are. There remain a number of significant problems that have not yet been resolved. We are still very much in a learning mode and have not yet moved to a "how can we do this better in Alma" stage. The library market being what it is, we would need to include Ex Libris in any future migration, but, we would also be open to considering any open source options that is viable. It would be helpful to have a N/A choice and a comment box in the survey. At this point in time, many of my response would have been N/A with an explanation that we just migrated and its too soon to really be able to answer the questions as written. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We had a difficult migration made worse by behavioral attributes of the Ex Libris managers assigned to our migration. Training was supposed to be done by our own site via "supervised" train the trainer sessions. Lessons were in no particular order, and the train-the-trainer trainings were laden with technical problems so that one of the migration managers had to step in to take over every time. The software itself does everything we need and then some, but it's exceedingly clunky. Clunky is the key word. Things that took us two or three clicks in Sierra now take ten in Alma. Some random observations that make working with this system even more clunky: there's too much white space on the screen; when working with serials, the months are in alphabetical order instead of numeric; in systems administration, we cannot duplicate a user's roles into a new user account (yes, templates exist, but each staff account is so individual that we don't have templates for them); in cataloging, Ex Libris is pressuring us to use automatic authority control, but the authorities the system suggests often don't coincide with the correct authority; in circulation, the way the exceptions are handled in hours open table is clunky -- requiring exceptions to both the opening time and closing time; in acquisitions, links don't consistently bring back the same information -- click on the title in one screen, and you get order information, but click on the title in a different screen, and you see the bib record. These examples just scratch the surface; it's death by a thousand paper cuts. Technically, the system does everything we need. We can purchase items, catalog them, and share them with our patrons. But we have expended buckets of hours on trying to get this system to work for us. It takes longer to order and catalog materials than in our previous system despite the work order arrangement (something that is a solution in search of a problem). Staff frequently meet internally and with the consortium to develop and review processes so we can get by. Yes, we can make it work, but it's been done at a steep cost to personnel time and sanity. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] currently implementing ALMA and Primo VE for go-live January 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

ExLibris is still the only verified ILS vendor actively listed on the FedRAMP website as in process, which means Alma/Primo is currently the only qualified hosted product that federal government libraries can purchase. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

There are not a lot of options for library systems that could accommodate our needs. We continue to monitor the landscape and would consider other products if the cost and functionality were comparable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

In the previous question about items we have interpreted this as physical inventory. Perhaps in this digital age, it might be more useful to ask a question that encompasses titles/electronic/digital holdings as more of our budget now goes to online resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

This library uses the same automation system as the parent entry. (Library type: Law; collection size: very small)

Above answers are guesses about our satisfaction level with the product once we are in production (our go-live date on Alma is January 29). So far it it looks like the vendor will meet the contract stipulations. I'm sure our satisfaction level will change (increase?) once we have been on the system for a little while. Thank you for doing this survey. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We switched discovery from Summon to Primo, and we have found that Primo is not as comprehensive as Summon. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

No library system does a very good job of handling music materials -- items with generic titles, published in multiple formats and languages. Alma has the capability to be more effective for music, but compromises need to be made to be part of a larger library system that spans all disciplines. (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

- Better training e.g. scenario-based has to be provided to customers and their teams. Their current model of non-customised training is not ideal for customers that have various scenarios and workflows. - Frequent, continuous improvement to its features, prioritized enhancements, - Respond to issues affecting mass community. Have a good platform for community to discuss issues (could be better organized into "subject areas") - Ex Libris engagement with community via Webinars, once a year meeting etc. - Moderately satisfied with the overall usability of the ILS, though the subcription price increase seems exorbitant. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Ex Libris support for the APAC region leaves a lot to be desired but one of the biggest pain points for Australia and New Zealand is their unfortunate decision to host in Singapore instead of Australia or the US which have much better capacity available. There's essentially nothing in common between Asia and Oceania. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The good: Vendor is updating the products on a regular basis and appear prepared to consult with the user community. The not-so-good: The responsiveness of Vendor customer support seems inconsistent - there is often a lot of chasing required to get action on support cases. Also, there are often a lot of bugs or problems as a side-effect of monthly/quarterly releases of system; this seem to indicate that perhaps more thorough testing should be taking place at Vendor’s end before these updates are released. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our interest in working with this or any other vendor is limited to which vendor the main university library chooses to work with, unless we were to opt for a completely separate system. Our primary problems with Alma stem from its poor serial control functionality, which is vital for a law library. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

In general we're not convinced that "discovery" works that well for medical and other graduate health sciences students. This population does not need any five citations to write a paper, they need specific and evidence-based materials. It often seems that discovery is a firehose when we need a syringe. We are locked into this approach based on needs of a primarily undergraduate library and are not overly impressed by the emphasis on discovery in this product or in the broader conversation about ILSes. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The Alma system does not include a feature for labeling print resources. An API had to be installed on the computers used for labeling. Our money was wasted on paying to migrate our acquisitions data from Voyager to Alma. We were given false information that led us to decide to migrate. We ended up having to redo all of our purchase orders in the end and a lot of cleanup work as well. We have outstanding tickets related to the acquisitions migration, 6 months later. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ex Libris Alma/Primo was the only product that met our requirements. Unfortunately there were implementation challenges and delays. We have been operational now for only 6 months and believe that some of our challenges will be worked out over time, however, at this point it is difficult to give a completely positive review. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are still in the process of migrating from Aleph to Alma. The [...] go live is July 2019 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

ILS primarily designed for universities. Lacks functionality that would enhance its value for a national library. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Transitioning to Alma from TLC’s Library.Solution came with a significant and burdensome learning curve. Alma falls short of being intuitive. Reporting is very complicated, and the non-standard terminology is sometimes confusing and altogether unnecessary. While Alma seems likely to streamline our automated processes in the future, we have not yet reaped any of those benefits. On the positive side, interruption to patron services have been minimal. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Current concerns about the system include: 1. the lack of precision and user-friendliness in browse functionality in the discovery layer product, Primo. Our library and consortium have worked to customize and improve this functionality. 2. the Fulfillment Network still lacks key patron-friendly functions. 3. it's been difficult for our library to conform to the product's built-in workflows. Given our library's size and staffing, it would be more helpful to create our own workflows instead of trying to conform to the system's. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The company has been receptive. Thenproblem is the designof the syste. Apparently theyvrae redesigning it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Primo does not show results from many of our online databases, most particularly EBSCO which is very frustrating to our users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We migrated to Alma from Aleph in July 2018. We are part of a statewide consortium of 23 community colleges. The main problem we have had with Alma (and Ex-Libris) is that after the migration we lost almost all of our local admin control. Everything down to local staff privileges has to be handled through a system-wide administrator. This has effectively tied the hands of our local admins and is the source of much frustration across the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

This is my one-person attempt to distill the general mood at a large library. Colleagues in different departments here would all have their own successes and gripes to report, but I am also taking into consideration the significant upsides of no longer running the ILS as an idiosyncratic local service. I will say that our large library continues to push the envelope of what the software can do and the expertise of the support staff assigned to us. This is a source of both frustration and ongoing progress. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is difficult to respond to this survey in a way that is meaningful this year. The reason for this is that we are in the VERY early stages of implementation of the shared Alma/Primo platform for 55 libraries and will not be operating in a live environment until Spring of 2020. Thus it is premature to provide an assessment as to how well the system is serving our 55 participating libraries. With the exception of the corporate relationship and customer support, I have answered most questions in this survey right down the middle -- to convey a neutral or null response. Of course, we chose this vendor over several other competitors in the marketplace, so another option would have been to give them anticipatory marks in the 7-9 range based on the promises in the RFP. That, anyway, is what we are hoping for once we reach go-live. Most of our libraries are coming off of III or Sirsi systems (with 2 OCLC and 2 opensource). I would venture to say that most of the III respondents would post answers in the 5 or below range. This would also probably apply to the two OCLC customers. Most of the Sirsi respondents would probably give that vendor scores of 5 or above, as would the two open source libraries. Finally, current support varies, with over half the libraries receiving shared support from one of four shared systems and the rest operating as stand-alone. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Alma works better and integrates better with our workflows than Voyager did, but as with any system, it is not entirely perfect. There are some headaches, some wacky workflows, some obstacles, but generally speaking, it does work well for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just recently implemented this system as part of a large academic library consortium. The implementation process took over a year and was very time intensive. Overall our workflows have become more complicated, for both print and electronic materials. There are problems with activations of electronic resources and getting them reflected in the discovery system (Primo) consistently. We can't update PubMed Linkout. We were told this would be fixed early this year but recently learned it will be delayed. The quality of Community Zone bib records which we are encouraged to use for e-resources is frequently poor and we can't improve them. Our impression is that this system is best for large academic libraries that want to do a lot of batch processes and have the programming staff to customize things and exploit APIs. So far it's not a great fit for us. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Alma has been in production for only 6 months and we are still working to implement all of the functionality. As such, I cannot adequately answer the first group of questions. Instead I have just used the mid point, but leaving them blank would have been the other option. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our ILS is consortially based through [...] , so we don't get a lot of input or latitude. Thus, we have gone with EDS for a discovery platform. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Alma/Primo is almost too much to manage for a small library with limited staff time. We are lucky that we are part of a statewide consortium, which provides support. This product is clearly more appropriate for a large library with its own IT department. It's turned my job into "All Alma all the time." (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Although many, many libraries are migrating to Alma, it is not the best choice for all institutions. Many parts of the system that may work well for large, multi-campus, multi-building institutions hinder smooth operation for small libraries. Many common steps require multiple mouse clicks. Some tasks (for instance, editing a holdings record from the MARC view) are only possible if you got to that page by the correct way. Print journal check-in is counter-intuitive. In designing a new integrated system for electronic resources, they neglected print materials. First tier support is ineffective, unless the problem is something that you misread in documentation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Library is Summon over Alma. Not up to par with Alma / Primo integrations. Only a couple people in support really understand how SOA works. Search results are poor compared to Primo. It is clear that Ex Libris is not interested in supporting Summon over Alma in the long term. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our migration to Alma from Sierra was completed on [...]. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma is ok, we are learning to live with the weaknesses and flaws of the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Alma is very powerful system, but sometimes too big and complicated for small libraries, who doesn't need long workflows, and doesn't have technical human resources who can help implement apis and integrations with other systems. Regarding the electronic resources, maybe it's not always Exlibris fault, but the Community Zone, where the e-collections are managed, is not always updated with the correct packages we're subscribed to, and the metadata is often poor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We just migrated in December 2018 and working through issues. I think we will have a much clearer picture this time next year. I will say the migration and implementation project management and support from Ex Libris has been very good. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are in transition from Voyager/Primo to Alma/Primo VE. I was on the team that chose the vendor on behalf of the [...]. I would have liked more companies bidding. EXL was the best choice from a limited menu. Their customer response system is very rigid and bureaucratic, as are their project implementation procedures. I do give them credit for instituting US-based CS after they were bought by ProQuest. We are a small college in a small 3-collge system. We would never consider an open source system, as it would require too many IT Dept. resources we simply don't have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma is very complete, it encompasses all functionalities to manage print and E-resources. However, it is very complex and time consuming to implement all functionalities. Workflows are detailed and there is no easy way to simplified them when we do not need all steps in the workflow. For instance, we want to have the cost for use as a useful analytics. This can only be done if we do the full purchasing workflow in ALMA which is not our case for ER as we need to use the enterprise system. There is no easy way to just add the ER subscription price. Overall satisfaction with ILL functions. However, no ability to send article as attachment. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Unable to answer questions relating to ILS procurement, installation, and customer support as my library shares another library's ILS, and as that library is responsible for all of these issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Training was video based NOT face to face. This proved to be less than successful. Most of the staff found it to be ineffective once you got past the very basics. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

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

"Overall I like Alma its working for me." [...]. While we (20 KLN Libraries) have Primo, eight (8) libraries also subscribe to EBSCO DIscovery Service. Six (6) KLN Libraries implemented Browzine LibKey Discovery Implementation with Alma/Primo and find it to be an impressive tool. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We will be moving to Alma July 1st of this year, so don't have real-world hands-on experience with it yet. Plus I am temporarily serving as acting library direct while we search for a new Director. So it's premature to offer any ratings, and hopefully the new Director will be in a better position to participate in next year's survey. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)

Ex Libris/Proquest, in their quest to rule the world have taken on so many new clients that their customer service - which was not very good to begin with, has dropped precipitously. Basic and essential operations (e.g. list making in Analytics, JR1-5 reports, etc) routinely fail for no apparent reason and then a ticket is issued and we wait for an answer - or a counter-argument as to what we must be doing wrong. In the highly touted "Alma Analytics," which deans and directors are enamored of we face daily issues (some Oracle-based, but that IS EL's platform choice) with data download limits (e.g. EL Oracle instance limit of 65,000 rows in Excel) or data warehouse size (we are in a 23 campus consortium) which often fails in the midst of analytic report creating. Hard to determine if it is EL implementation of OBIEE, or what exactly the problem is, IN the end, we are hampered by the 1) EL platform and 2) their un-paralleled customer growth. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

As we've just started using the new ILS we migrated last november 2018 to, we cannot really respond accurately to questions regarding our level of satisfaction yet. (Library type: National; collection size: very large)

We are literally coming live on ALMA/PRIMO VE this month, so we haven't actually used the services in production yet. It's tricky to answer the customer support questions because support is different during migration than it is after go live... (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Ex Libris has made improvements this year but still experiences problems indexing and publishing material to Primo on occasion. If we ever are allowed to migrate to Primo VE this should be solved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The migration from Sierra to Alma was completed in December 2018. It is early to evaluate the software and technical support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Alma es un software de gestión bibliográfica potente que facilita tener el control de todo el proceso bibliográfico de recursos impresos y digitales. Sus funcionalidades permiten igualmente la emisión de reportes bajo diferentes criterios y campos. La comunidad de usuarios y la documentación que soporta su implementación es importante para una óptima puesta en funcionamiento y por supuesto para el desarrollo de sus actualizaciones. Es fundamental tener en cuenta desarrollos asociados al manejo de grandes cantidades de información en los reportes y un mejor acompañamiento al cliente en el manejo de las ayudas y documentación. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We're monitoring FOLIO's development and planned implementations, including at [...]. However, we have no plans to migrate at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The lack of a PubMed integration with Alma has been disappointing. We were happy with our implementation team but when we ran into issues with our electronic resources holdings migration, the right people were not at the table to resolve the issue efficiently. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We didn't answer to the last question because it is not clear to us what means "elementi nelle collezioni" (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are not considering removing Primo but are interested in Dimensions and Yewno as an added discovery layer for graduate researchers and research faculty staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have only been live for about 18 months and are still getting comfortable with the system. We find that the documentation gets outdated quickly. There is so much documentation that is hard to find what you need. Overall we are satisfied with the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I would prefer local support rather than dealing with an overseas company, and having to enter issues through a Salesforce portal. (Library type: Art; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Alto

top

Support is my major bugbear, it is truly disgusting. Staff turnover at the firm is a possible warning that all is not well internally. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Support from Capita has deteriorated markedly in the past year. Although the basic installation and implementation was as timetabled, many of the details and implementation issues (particularly around Soprano, Capita's web based software) are still outstanding. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Over the last 12 months, we have seen the visible decline in the quality of support from Capita. We have been told that role of 'Business development manager' is now discontinued; and this role is now split into 'Customer Success Manager' and 'Customer Retention Manager'. And these two roles will now look after all the customers. This is a different approach and it is yet to be established how effective this strategy will be. It is fair to say that over the last few weeks, customer support has got better. But the community is keeping a watching brief since the news came out about the financial issues of the company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We migrated to Capita's Cloud-based Soprano platform in July 2019. We believe we are the first UK higher education library to go fully live with the Soprano product (others also still use elements of Capita's old "Alto" client). Soprano was selected in the knowledge that it does not offer an ERM module, which is fine for us as we are happy with EBSCO Discovery and would rather not put all our eggs in one basket re: a combined LMS / ERM / Discovery product. The over-arching Capita business has had some well-documented difficulty in 2018, which has led to some temporary disruption to their support and development teams. However overall we are very pleased with the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Amlib

top

AMLIB is now an end of life product, it has been a good ILS. Time to switch to a cloud based, vendor hosted product. OCLC / AMLIB customer support is still very good. The product is still being supported in that respect. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Apollo

top

The fast response to questions provided by the staff at Biblionix is appreciated. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This year Biblionix created a kids version of the catalog and provided it to customers at no charge. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Apollo is still - hands downs - the best ILS product we've worked with. Worth every penny we've spent on it. Biblionix continues to provide exceptional service and genuinely-useful product development that responds to real customer needs. In particular, we appreciate Apollo's seamless integration with our eBook platform - no other vendor has been able to offer this. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Apollo from Biblionix is out of this world fantastic! In my 30+ years as a public library director I have never worked with any company that puts their customers first the way Biblionix does. They constantly improve their product, they are quick to respond to any questions, they actually implement customer suggestions, etc. They truly care about the quality of their product, and it shows every day. We are lucky to have found them 10 years ago! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I cannot say that the customer service has gotten better or worse because it was wonderful from the start and has remained wonderful throughout. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

In the six years we have had this product, our library staff has found it very easy to use. If an update is needed, emails are sent with specific directions and screen shots are used when necessary. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've had Apollo for a little over a year now, and it's been great to work with. It's streamlined a lot of our processes and it's very user friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are 100% satisfied with the Apollo ILS and the product support we receive from Biblionix. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a small rural library and very pleased with the Apollo system. Biblionix keeps updating and adding new services. My only criticism would be of the search engine for the catalog. For instance, if a patron is looking for a book but it does not show up in our catalog, I will use Amazon to double check the title. Nine times out of ten, I will use the correct title in Apollo and find the item...it's somewhat annoying. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Apollo continues to be a great service, adding a kid's interface to the catalog this year and working to modernize the staff dashboard. Reports and suggestions to the support team result in real improvements and changes in the product, not just in the "thank you, we'll take it under consideration" file. We love it! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We just migrated our LibrarySoft data to Biblionix Apollo. It was difficult to convert the LibrarySoft data to Apollo because LibrarySoft reports are limited in formats to export. This wasn't a surprise to us since the support and report writer for LibrarySoft was our most frustrating part of their system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Biblionix focuses on small to medium size public libraries. This focus allows for exceptional service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

As a public library director I have had experience with many different ILS, including open source koha (liblime). We are extremely happy with Apollo/Biblionix - the product, the customer service, the price for our size of library and would (and do) recommend the company and the product without hesitation. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We absolutely love Apollo. It is designed for small to medium sized public libraries which we are. They are also very responsive to user requests and provide excellent customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Biblionix is very responsive to all our ILS needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The staff at Apollo have been tremendous to date. They are incredibly responsive and have made migration much more quick than expected and surprisingly pain free. The ILS offers many more options than our previous ILS and the cost savings is great. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We continue to be impressed with Apollo's features and enhances, though we've noticed a decrease in the level of support compared with previous years. It seems that Apollo's justified success in growing their customer base is affecting their support teams response time and follow-through. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am also a patron at my local library where I have a cabin in Wisconsin. They use Polaris. And as a patron, I like it quite a bit better than Apollo. No idea as to the back end. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We saved so much money having Apollo as our ILS system. We used to have Horizon from SirsiDynix and we didn't have this many capability. The only issue with Apollo is the connectivity is a bit slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Biblionix is simply outstanding both in operational and support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Customer service has really been helpful. There are a few wrinkles to iron out in getting everyone used to the new system, and a few things we were able to do in our old system that we can't do here, such as switch between tabs using a linked member name or book title (we used to be able to look up a book's history from any page by simply clicking on its number whether we were in check out mode or edit materials or we could see who currently has the book by clicking on the title). We've only had Apollo for about 7 months now, and it looks like questions get addressed and the system gets updated accordingly so that's helpful. (Library type: National; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We just moved over to Apollo November 2018. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Atriuum

top

We investigated joining a consortium. There were a few options. One uses Koha and the other uses Innovative systems. The Innovative one was just out of the question due to cost. The other one is using Koha and they are doing a terrible job at maintaining the records and staff felt it would be too much at this time to clean up the database for them. So in the end, we are staying with Atriuum for the time being. But I will be investigating consortium membership again in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Atriuum has been a stellar product for us with just the right amount of tech support and innovation. We are still in the process of migrating from a largely uncataloged/ card catalog system to a computer based ILS. We still plan to eventually have our catalog online although we are not part of the [...] Library system of the [...] Consortium and are planning to have it hosted by Book Systems. We are very much a work in progress and are delighted with a system that can grow with us and our community (the digital divide is still a reality in rural West Virginia). (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

rium updates quite a bit and then we get notice that it happened. That is a bit frustrating. Also the customer service is good but some of the IT people get annoyed if you don't ask the right question the first time. You can tell in their voice. I have always been able to resolve the issues I have through them however. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We very rarely have a problem, the most problem is find certain reports which is not really hard but I don't need them all the time so I have to call for help. It doesn't take long and I'm helped. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very pleased with our systems, no changes (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am the new director of the [...] so I answered these questions to the best of my limited experience with the software (not knowing about implementation speeds, or whether service is improving or not). I will say I was impressed with customer service at the beginning of my career at the library. I called to ask a question about the program and the representative soon discovered I was new as it is their practice to address the caller by name and my name was not on file yet. After answering my question they offered a free 2 hour training session on the software by one of their staff. I of course agreed and during the scheduled appointment my trainer took time to find out what I had discovered on my own and ran through functions she thought would come in most use to me. She filled up that entire two hours and I am so grateful, it made my job so much more efficient, I use things she taught me every day. Awesome customer service! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I have migrated three public libraries to Atriuum. It is the best system available. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

If we had the resources we would consider migrating to a different ILS vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have used Book Systems, Inc as our library automation service since we became automated. We have watched them grow into a pretty great company. Just within the last few years they have really made some nice additions to their interface. It's nice when a company continues to evolve and try as hard as they do to help us smaller libraries keep up. I have to say Book System's customer support is outstanding. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Very pleased with this company. The system meets our needs and support is great. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Customer service is great and we've been very happy with the product's ease of use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

A quick "see all items currently checked out" option would be great. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We love our system and would recommend it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are very happy with Atrium. Any questions are handled efficiently and timely. Any requests for improvements are considered and valued. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very satisfied with Book Systems Atriuum software. Their support is great. We back up on their server so no more worries on this end. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Went live with Atriuum in Feb. 2018 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am learning the system. I like it. It has a clean interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The customer service is great! I haven't had to use it much because this ILS is easy to work with and understand. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Atriuum is functional and inexpensive - this works for us. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are pleased with the quick response and support for any problems that may arise (although they are few). Our limitations concerning functionality are the result of funding issues, not the resources available. We are well satisfied with the Atriuum product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Atriuum has been very responsive to our requests for new features and this year has developed several features that we requested. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

I have been very happy with BookSystems. They are constantly improving, and their most recent update, Atriuum v.12, is a big step forward. For one thing, it allows me to incorporate images into my OPAC messages and turn my links into badges. Their development team is always open to suggestions from actual librarians for improving their product. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This vendor was exceptional to work with, They helped up setup reports specific to our needs and has since the initial setup helped to develop other reports for our needs. They are very receptive to suggestions for changes. They have been a joy to work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

To be honest, i was unsure how to answer some of the "yes," "no" questions only because I have recently taken over for the former Director and was not sure of some of the answers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Aurora

top

We migrated to Aurora from Amlib in late 2018, and have been impressed with the product and support received. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Axiell Aurora

top

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

This library is currently considering migrating to a new VuFind based library resource portal. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Basis TechLib

top

We have been in the process of migrating from Basis TechLib to ExLibris Alma since January 2018. We have hit a few hiccups along the way. We are currently scheduled for Go Live at the end of January 2019. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)


Bibliovation

top

Migration will likely occur fall of 2019 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


BOOK-IT

top

Our organization is a conglomeration of library, museum, and archive. Our selection of ILS was dependent upon finding a vendor that could deliver an all-in-one web interface to service all three divisions. This was not a simple task. While our ILS may not be as sophisticated as what many of us (librarians) are accustomed to working with, the archive and museum staff are more satisfied with the products they are using. Furthermore, the support staff for our ILS are located in Sweden. This has also created complications due to difference in time zones and language barriers. BOOK-IT is capable (mostly) of completing the task at hand, but it is not user-friendly and it lacks the ability to directly interact with almost any typical U.S. product or service. Despite this, it is unlikely we will switch to a new ILS. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our current product is working well enough but we will swap if the co-operation region we work in forces this. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Carl.X

top

This year our libraries have further benefited from the ILS APIs and ad hoc queries which allow us to build custom utilities for our peculiar problems. We appreciate that our ILS vendor is not controlled by the whims of private equity. This business continues to place effort into customer relationships and their reputation. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have found that as TLC's Carl customer base has grown, their staff has not adapted well to the influx of new clients. There seems to be regular staff turnover and no action from management to deal with repeated issues we've experienced with lackadaisical and flippant customer support. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been on our current ILS for just about one year, and we are *completely* satisfied with our migration decision. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Our library's circulation staff would prefer we continue to use SIRSI rather than Carl. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We migrated to CARL.X in June 2018, so are still learning about the company and the products. The support during migration was excellent We use the CARL.Connect Discovery product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Cicero

top

My answers reflects the fact that we migrated to Cicero ILS less than a year ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Systematic (Cicero) does not manage our electronic resources. They are manufactured by DDB (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Concourse

top

We have been using Book Systems Inc. & Concourse for about 15 years now. There customer service and tech support is top notch. I have had to call two other competitors about possibly leading training classes for our Virginia Church Library Association. No one answered the phone it was all automated. Once I finally got through I left a message and neither returned my call. Only reason I was calling them is because current members have those systems and ask about then coming to our conferences. After this experience I truly love working with Book Systems. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Destiny

top

Vendor currently migrating to vendor-hosted discovery interface provided from the vendor network and is currently supporting three different database interfaces. Many bumps in the road, especially for eBooks. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are happy with Follett Destiny except does not have sip2, but do have a Koha server that we use to respond to sip2 requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Destiny Follett is leaving its public library customers behind as they strive to get more of the school market. Public ilbraries need to have ILS that is SIP2 compliant for a lot of their e-resources and Follett Destiny has indicated to me that they are not planning to add that in the near future. While I've been very satisfied in the past with them, this is causing a problem and I will probably be seeking a new vendor by the first of the year. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Since our individual schools are under the jurisdiction of the district, many of these questions do not pertain to [...]. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

There are still features needed by the Library which is not included in the current Library System. e.g. Acquisition (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I am satisfied with the price and service level of this service and vendor. I would consider another system ONLY if directed to do so by administration order. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Their customer service solutions tend to imply that they make implementation decisions based on their IT impressions of needs or capabilities rather than those of practical, every day user needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Follett Collections features continues to engage more users on a daily basis. I'm really into using it. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We also use Follett Destiny to manage our equipment: computers, panels, monitors, etc. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We like Destiny. It has a few glitches, but not many. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Most important features of Destiny/Follett are access to catalog records and collection analysis. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

It is aggravating that things I feel should just be a part of destiny require an extra charge. (TitlePeek to show covers of books is a BIG one). Not a priority for the district, which pays for the system, so it doesn't get purchased. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Reports are not as robust as they need to be. Customer service via email is not always helpful in answering multiple questions related to an issue. Destiny Discover is not quite ready for everyday use by librarian. Classic Destiny and Destiny Discover would also be better with more limiter options in the catalog. Discover already looks dated. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been very satisfied with Follett over the years. In 2015, we moved to the "hosted" version of Destiny...where our collection records reside in Follett cloud storage and the automation interface is browser-based. The performance has been excellent...with no worries about server backups or update installs. I would highly recommend them to any interested library. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have Destiny. My number one issue that stops me from giving them full marks is the difficulty in generating a weeding list. I would like to run a report that will give me a list of copies with a publication date earlier than a given date, and that have 1 or fewer circulations in the last 5 years. This should be an easy report to generate and I was able with our last system. Now I have to generate a report, export it in Excel, sort and then select part of the report, and I can not specify the circs in the last five years or whatever range I want, I can only see total circs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sports Illustrated for Kids books paperbacks, Scholastic hardback and paperback books, Amulet publishing hardback books, Aladdin publishing hardback books, Simon & Schuster hardback books, all fall apart. Some books with only 1 to 3 check-outs, others with slightly more check-outs. I ordered one book that was listed as a paperback, and it was actually a magazine/book. I also ask for books to have all labels put on, so that they are shelf ready. Due to the above magazine/book none of my order came with their labels on, because they couldn't put the spine label on that one book! My books for the other school I have came with the wrong reading level labels on them. There have been other problems, too. I have 2 schools that I used Follett exclusively for my book orders. I now use another company for my book orders. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Report generating options are cumbersome and not intuitive, requiring trial and error to get desired info or a call to tech support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our school District Library Media Services determines the vendors in our system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This company has gone from being a great one with a good product to one that is unreliable and frustrating to deal with. They are not responsive to customer input and have not made significant updates to their products in a while. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

The system d ok we not properly update classrooms, and it becomes more and more difficult to add pictures. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We love our library catalog. We only wish it was more "spelling forgiving" as we are an elementary school and many kids do not know the correct spelling of the things they want to check out. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Printing labels has always been difficult and despite numerous conversations with tech support over the years and suggestions for changes, it remains difficult. Also with so many libraries genrefying their collections, it would be helpful if Follett listened and made modifications allowing the transition to be easier. (Ex. a better way to relabel where an item is shelved.) (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have encountered numerous incompatibilities between our computer systems and the new Destiny updates. So far, everything has not yet been fixed. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Want to know more about how eBooks work with Destiny. Seems to have some glitches. Books are not released quickly. Sometimes it takes overnight to get them released or checked IN. Sometimes a student login takes overnight before she can use it. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I migrated to Follett Destiny over the summer (2018). It is very easy-to-use. Cataloging is much quicker than it was with III.Creating patron records is also easy and fast. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Migrated from Winnebago in 2016. SO much better. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

na (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Follett has a discovery interface for its ILS (Destiny Discover), but it is currently difficult for us to use. We plan to shift over to it eventually, but it's part of the same ILS so no other changes will need to be made. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am in no way in charge of changing the system we currently have. I work for a large school district who decides what we use. I do currently like our current follett system and find it easy to use. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have a good working relationship with Follett. They always respond to issues in a timely manner. Very satisfied with them. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I love the library as much as most people who take part in the activities going on for the children and teens! 😎 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

All of this type of decision is made at the district level with little or any input from the local school librarian. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of the [...] school district that has over 20 schools. Some of these questions should be asked of the administration --or my bosses. I don't know the answers. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very indifferent about our ILS system. It isn't tailored to a public library and I really don't feel that it has options that are specific to our daily needs. It functions fine for circulation. The report options aren't great. Nothing much has changed on the platform in the 7 years I've been with the library (which is downright sad). We aren't actively seeking out a replacement, but I would certainly listen to options. Their customer service has been great when contacted, but it's not like they contact us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Very happy with destiny (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The only thing that I am frustrated with destiny: I used ti be able to pull a report that my school/parents used by Fountas and Pinnell Reading level. Now it only lets me pull the Top 10 in terms of circulation statistics. Library Reports>Top Bottom Titles. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We had a very hard time with interfacing the state's new ILL system with Destiny. It took months and at least 50 tech support calls. We also found out that Destiny had been overcharging us for years. We aren't planning on migrating at this time, but if we did, I would consider a different company. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Most of these questions have nothing to do with a library of this size. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Have not had to call ILS technical support in two or three years, now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Destiny Quest, and Follett as a Company, have been good to work with. They are not the most "sophisticated" circulation systems for a public library, but the price range is good for a budget. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The main issue I had with Follett is that my library is a private academic theological library which requires a different look: Follett is geared to the Elementary-High School ages. And, I need to be able to catalog Greek, Hebrew, and Korean, which are more difficult. It does have all the accents for a lot of other languages, which is great. I'm not impressed with the Ebooks, or service for Ebooks. Some of ours from Follett had some technical smears that I reported a couple of years ago, and, they still haven't been fixed. I haven't tried to buy Ebooks from other providers. They have a good community forum where you can make comments and ask for help on this and other topics. Main issue: When someone on campus hacked a library employee's username and password and made thousands of changes to the catalog, I was able to see some of the changes that were made by looking at Follett Logs that were given to me by my IT department, and reports that I made. However, they did not always have the level of extreme detail I needed to show exactly which changes were made. The hacker was also clever enough to batch a lot of records to make changes. This is where the level of detailed changes did not appear by title record, just as, "Tag D3 deleted from all records in group 4" etc. That being said, Follett is "user friendly". You can figure out how to use a lot of features without a lot of instructions (except for the "Report Builder" feature), which I haven't been able to get the hang of. The company did provide me with a High Level of Technical support to decipher some of the Follett Log codes, and show me how to decipher them on my own. But, after the 20th or so call, didn't want to provide this anymore. I saw that the hacker had figured out how to do some things that when I called in to ask, "how to duplicate them?", depending on the customer service person who answered the phone, didn't always know what to do. I haven't made a complete list of other items that I'd like to have changed in Follettt. I have made enhancement requests, some of which were implemented. Another really great help is Ms. Marc. Send your cataloging questions to her, and, she sends great replies! We end up building on existing records, or original cataloging, for our catalog www.cfotlibrary.org (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

I can definitely tell that Follett was designed for use in a school, not a public library. There are some limitations in the reports I can generate that cause me extra work at the end of the year report time and little things like having to delete a patron's fines item by item instead of being able to waive the entire amount. I have submitted suggestions but never heard back. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Overall, the product meets our needs to circulate, track and manage through an enterprise system. We have found that the integrated services (i.e. discover, eBooks) are geared toward users who solely use all of Follett's resources. It is not always seamless to integrate eBooks from other providers into Destiny. And it was difficult to purchase eBooks at a district level and have them available to all schools in the district. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

My primary objection to our current system, Destiny, is that it is made for a school system. The public library has a greater need for more, in both reports and offerings to the public. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Follett/Destiny is primarily made for school libraries. While we have made it work for us in the past, we are currently choosing to migrate to Evolve which will hopefully suit our needs better while maintaining the affordability of Follett/Destiny. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I have been using Follett for 26 years, and find it to be will suited to a K-12 school system. There are many features that make if very user friendly for my students that don't seem to exist in the bigger consortium systems. My public library is on a consortium, and I, a certified LMS, find the system cumbersome and user-unfriendly. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


DIGIBIB

top

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


EOS.Web

top

Support has been more time consuming since EOS became a part of Sirsi-Dynix. The EOS people have always been very helpful. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are mostly content with our ILS and the service from the vendor. We are just looking to find some savings and since we already have a separate discovery service and more and more of our collection is electronic we think we can get away with a cheaper ILS with fewer features. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

It's a challenge for users to deal with a "new" vendor when the long-time vendor has been bought by another and is forced to integrate with new systems, such as customer support. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Product isn't intuitive and help desk not always quick or knowledgeable about the issues. They also put their help webpages behind a log-in (separate from the log-in for the ILS program), which is clunky. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

No longer supports all diacritics. Copy and paste functions from outside the database are a problem. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are fairly satisfied with our current ILS but to save money so that it can be reinvested in other resources and systems we are considering migrating to a cheaper system in the near future. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

ILS functionality in reports needs to be improved with this product. (Library type: Military; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a special library, we are extremely satisfied with EOS.Web. It meets all of our needs and we have had no issues with EOS.Web since we implemented it five years ago. The customer support is amazing. All of our questions are answered quickly and thoroughly, and our feedback about updates is taken seriously. We have had a wonderful experience EOS.Web and highly recommend this ILS to other small libraries. (Library type: Military; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I don't understand the question above. "Items" should be defined somewhat. We are on 3rd Discovery platform. In the past, we tried EDS (Ebsco) and TDNet, but we were not satisfied with either. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We really appreciate the understanding of our institutional context, and the hands-on support we receive from the vendor (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Evergreen -- Equinox Software

top

Question 4 - We do not use our ILS for electronic records; this question need a n/a (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Question 4 - We do not use our ILS for electronic records; this question needs a n/a (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Creating report templates is an ongoing issue Evergreen. The system to create them is very complex. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The number of items in the library's collection is broken down as follows: (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have changed the ILS this year and made the decision to upload only the print records (in the previous ILS, we had also uploaded e-resources). This explains the decrease in the number of records. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Their price is right for small libraries with small budgets. Their shared catalogue saves time for understaffed libraries without a trained cataloguer. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

No course reserve function (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

All of our technical support comes through our consortium, [...] . This is ideal for us as it means we don't need to manage anything on our own. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Evergreen software is dated, slow, marginally functional, and no longer fits the needs of our library. The Reports section is absolutely unusable. I understand that it is cheap, but we are getting exactly what we are paying for. If it were up to me, we would no longer use an open source ILS; it seems that open source software is great in the beginning in that people are excited about it, maintenance and updates are frequent and responsive to customer needs. But as time goes on, maintenance and updates drop off, customer service becomes harder to come by, and eventually users are left with an out of date product that is hard to update or it becomes difficult to migrate data due to the data being in old/out of date formats. Open source is fun and cheap in the beginning, but as time goes on, frustration and costs mount when that software ages out of usefulness. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)


Evergreen -- Independent

top

Because we get our ILS through our consortium most of these questions are not relevant to my library. The effectiveness of the print and electronic resources management questions are not relevant at all. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We went to a web based version of Evergreen this year and it is soooooo difficult. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Our consortium deals with these issues so I can't answer many of these questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Now on version 3.0 Will be upgrading to version 3.1 in January 2019 Will be using the web client in July 2019 A lot of Evergreen community participation in fixing bugs and other improvements which result in bugs getting fixed quicker and improvements getting funded than with a proprietary ILS system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

the product is becoming cumbersome and less efficient. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Our current vendor (Evergreen) supports a discovery interface that allows [...] to maximize our Library Services Platform and offer our communities a statewide library that includes academic, public, and special collections. Partnerships with state Parks and Historic sites, local museums, Aquarium and Zoo are also available to our patrons as we are able to manage their use from our platform. The myriad of services we offer our communities and their integration in our library platform service allows an unprecedented opportunity of experience for every citizen of [...]. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We mainly receive ILS support through [...] so the questions regarding the company and support are answered based on my experience with [...] , not with the ILS company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a very small library. I only responded to questions of which I had knowledge. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

PINES contracted with an outside agency last year to do a comprehensive ILS evaluation of which ILSes could meet the needs of our large consortium, and Evergreen continued to be the only viable choice. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)


Evergreen -- MOBIUS

top

We don't use the ILS to manage our electronic resources, so I left that question blank. We also switched hosting providers during the current year, so the question of whether customer support has gotten better is problematic. Most of the customer support is provided to us by the consortium, but also indirectly by the hosting provider. Consortium support is about the same; I think the new hosting provider is better than the previous one. We are currently in process of implementing Summon. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our library currently uses an open source ILS. We are very happy with both the product and the vendor who manages it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

This catalog is not for the serious library user. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We are part of a large statewide consortium that is growing. One of the biggest advantages is the statewide resource sharing. The continuing funding for the consortium is under review, however. This lends some uncertainty to the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Evergreen -- PTFS Europe

top

Will be moving to Symphony in March 19 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Horizon

top

The library has signed an agreement to migrate to an Ex Libris Alma/Primo system during the coming year. Go live date is projected to be January 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix BLUEcloud services still seem like they're not ready, or if they are there is appears to be a lot of onus on the library to get them set up and operational. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Though we have contracted (as a state) to move to Alma and Primo during 2019, we will continue using Horizon through 2019. The questions above were answered based on experience with Horizon and SirsiDynix. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our ILS is stable and dependable, but development and improvements are slower for our system, Horizon, than for Symphony, the sister product from SirsiDynix. Functionality that we want/need is not available as soon as it is for Symphony. And though the company is making progress with Cloud based modules, the functionality isn't there. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The [...] has no problems and don't expect any (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Under the new contract agreed to in 2018,[...] moved it's Horizon system to the SirsiDynix cloud. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

My impression of customer service has decreased. It has taken a long time for sales, billing, and technical support to get in touch on various issues. In some cases my inquiries were never acknowledged. I will qualify that and say our account manager has been proactive and moved my issues forward when they are taking a while. However, this is not the ideal way for issues to be resolved. We are implementing a new discovery layer. In this case, our project coordinator has been in constant communication and is quick to answer questions. We have not received training for the the new discovery layer yet, so I cannot comment on it beyond the installation. The installation went well. There was an issue with the amount of drive space the vendor needed. The staging document's specification was not correct. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix has always been very responsive to our questions and issues. Horizon continues to be a good, solid ILS allowing local customization to meet our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

The number for" Approximate number of items in the library's collection" only reflects physical items in the collection. Our digital collection, is not included. Horizon is still a good ILS and the service from SirsiDynix is excellent, but Horizon is showing its age. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Most of my answers were (5) or neutral since the questions didn't really pertain to us. As part of a consortium, we rely on our consortia contacts to address any ILS support issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are pretty happy with Horizon and SirsiDynix. They need to accelerate their development of web-based products. We are moving to their Software as a Service platform in the next six months, which represents a major automation strategy shift for us. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

There is a trend with [...] Law Libraries in moving from the major ILS vendors to Koha due to funding issues. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

BLUE Cloud products being developed slower than expected/promised. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The ILS staff client is fairly good. Enterprise discovery layer is lacking in some features and is difficult to customize and manage. It is easier for the organization to procure as many solutions as possible from the ILS vendor rather than going through an RFP process for individual components. If we made a change to a different ILS vendor, a better public interface would be the driving factor in that decision. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We found as we were looking at other Integrated Library Systems none of them could offer everything we needed. There were some that offered new features that we would've liked but different offer features that we currently use. So the question becomes is it worth migrating to a new system? Unless the cost savings outweigh the pain of learning a new system and working with a new vendor we stayed with our current vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall, we are very happy with the support and functionality from SirsiDynix and the Horizon product. The next big step for our library is to consider and move to the BLUEcloud functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Item count is for physical materials as of the end of FY18. In addition, HSPLS has 122,220 eBooks/eAudio as of the end of FY18. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are migrating from Horizon to Polaris -- implementation will be complete in the next weeks. SirsiDynix's development timeline for Horizon and BlueCloud was not meeting our expectations. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Little Horizon development is happening. I will be recommending a move to Symphony within the next few years. BlueCloud products are not at a stage where they can be used operationally yet. We are using eResource Central for our eResources - reasonably happy with it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our ILS is quite old. We are needing to upgrade but are waiting for results of a ILS Statewide tender happening in Victoria. The results will determine how we proceed with our ILS and whether to stay with our current vendor or potentially move to a new system as part of a consortium. Our ICT strategy requires us to moved to a Saas version away from servers. Whichever vendor we go with this will be a priority. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Very satisfied (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our biggest problem right now is our OPAC. We currently use Enterprise and are disappointed in the lack of development in the product over the years. We tried to purchase BiblioCommons but ran into contract issues between our County's legal department and BiblioCommons. We are also very interested in Pika, but they seem to have stopped all new implementations outside of their consortia. We use Communico for our calendar and room reservations and are interested in seeing their new discovery product, but at this point we don't have much information about it. Our main wish with SirsiDynix is that they would stop trying to roll out new products (Digital Academy, Visibility, Analytics, etc.) and focus on bring their core products into the 21st century. Promised updates, such as mobile pages (not even responsive...just mobile versions), to Enterprise still have not materialized. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

moving to consortium no input into product, but moving to LSP gov library unable to do open source (Library type: Military; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We find that Sirsi no longer focusses on Horizon product. The Blue Cloud Analytics product which we use for statistical reports is unsatisfactory. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

we had a very bad experience with blue cloud analytics training, but the vendor did respond to our complaints and try to make things right. last year we had MANY problems with getting NCIP working. It took about a year and a half for SirsiDynix to accomplish this. Now we're trying to get it to work for our consortium partner, and they still haven't gotten it working after about 8 months. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix seems to be moving in the right direction with their development efforts. Their support personnel and library relations managers are amazing. Our only concern is no real new sales of the Horizon product, so the customer base is fairly static. That is less of a concern than it was, since fewer of the existing customers seem to be looking to move to something else. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Although overall a solid product, they need to modernize their interfaces and improve functionality for BlueCloud. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our library is satisfied with SirsiDynix as a company, but the Horizon ILS is very limited on customization. We would like to have more flexible ILS but our budget does not allow it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] is not using the latest version of the catalog which is a discovery layer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Insignia

top

We are happy to be working with a Canadian vendor with a product well-suited to the K-12/school market. As a smaller company, the response to support requests is sometimes slower than we are used to having been with a larger US ILS vendor previously. The system provides features that are very appealing to Teacher-Librarians, such as the Homeroom Checkout and a more visually appealing OPAC. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)


KLAS

top

Vendor is very slow to implement requested changes in the software to incorporate new technology available to us. We would like to stay with current vendor, but if they do not make the changes we want/need early in the next calendar year, we may consider switching to another vendor. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha

top

Actually as of recently Cineca no longer maintains KOHA so we have had to do this ourselves inside our consortium. Thus the answers relating to information about companies is actually outdated. Please note that we have updated the holdings as we have recently had to discard a large portion of the paper holdings. We do however have thousands of electronic resources that are not actually present in the catalog. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

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

Koha is our actual system and cover our need... we are considering implement other systems to make public our digital collections. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

This a very small library inside a town, there are not digital collections. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

it is observed that there is no provision of issue of loose issues of hard copies of journals in KOHA. this service will be very useful for academic libraries. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We implemented the system by ourselves. My answers are related to the performance of our Information Technology Office. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- Admin Kuhn

top

FOLIO is currently considered to be implemented in addition to Koha in order to add electronic resource management functionality. We currently have no plans to fully replace Koha by FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Koha -- ByWater Solutions

top

We are very happy with Bywater Solutions. Their attitude towards us is professional and collegial, and lacks any of the paternalism of companies like Follett, who think they know best what you need. Bywater have worked with us in a very responsive way to customize our OPAC, and their entire approach to Koha is creative, forward-looking and inviting of criticism and improvements. The functionality of Koha and its integration with other products like Ebsco's Novelist Select and Overdrive is really fantastic. Ebsco Discovery also worked with us in an extremely helpful way to implement a discovery page for our elementary students. We are so pleased that we made the switch from Follett Destiny. One of the best decisions we've made. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We love Koha in part because we can custom fit it to this library. There are many tweaks and adjustments we can perform ourselves. For example, we can change circulation rules within minutes. And because it is basically international, we can do little things so as to make our community feel welcome, such as offering the catalog interface in Amharic, Arabic, and many other languages. This past year we decided to implement automatic renewals. It took very little time to get this new procedure operating almost exactly as we had wished, and it has been wildly popular among our library users. We find the customer support at ByWater amazing and unusual. We especially appreciate their instant response to the rare Sunday afternoon question - not only answering the call but immediately working with us to resolve the problem. Upgrades? Our previous vendor insisted we close the library so as to fit their 9-5 schedule. ByWater performs them during the night, when we are closed. Little differences like that translate into better public service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our State Library has become our tech support gateway, and it is working out well for both of us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our Alma/Primo system will go live in January, 2019, as part of the [...] library consortium. Koha was a decent product, but much of the functionality we lacked after 3+ years required extra money to develop with ByWater Solutions. We were never happy about that. Additionally, one of our member libraries made the leap to Alma/Primo early in the year, so the rest of us decided to follow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Re: "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?": We don't include them in our ILS. There was N/A option so the neutral 5 was in place of that. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer service has always been exceptional, there is consistently a quick response and a solution whenever a question is asked. Bywater is an outstanding company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] is in the process of migrating to ByWater Koha and it has been nothing short of exceptional. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

ByWater has been a joy to work with since we started with them 8 years ago. They are quick to respond to tech problems and to help with things I don't know or can't remember how to do. I cannot recommend them enough. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

none (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Implementation of new Bywater Koha ILS currently in progress. We have found Bywater to be knowledgable, helpful, responsive, and timely. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We switched to Koha supported by ByWater this summer. We are very happy wiht the decision. We are currently switching from Primo, SFX and Primo Central to EDS and their Link Resolver. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha is getting better and better all the time! As a small special library, our needs are unique compared with larger, public libraries, but Koha's functionality for us is improving with each upgrade. ByWater's support keeps improving as well, as they grow and evolve as a company. We have been very satisfied with their response time/manner. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been happy with Bywater as a support company for our Koha system. In terms of libraries with large serial sets--there are a few indexing issues if there are too many item records attached to a bib. We have worked around these with a surrogate record that links to the actual record. The acquisitions module can be difficult for libraries that pay tax as there are rounding and calculation issues causing slight variations at times. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

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

Koha ILS is frequently updated and developed via ByWater. The ILS is a solid workhorse that gets the job done, and permits us to leverage sql queries on the backend to build out an assortment of operational improvements within our organization; it is this last boon that makes us most content. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are not technically on ByWater hosted services until February (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater support is good as long as you are diligent about submitting separate tickets for each issue. It is kind of interesting that you can pay them extra to develop new functionality for the ILS, which then gets incorporated into the Koha codebase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha Searching for known items is difficult & gives too many results. We find the Zebra search very hard to use on the staff side. Too many results returned, no left anchored search or precise index searching available. Prioritizing results is difficult. Adoption of elastic search may resolve some of the issues, but will still be very different from previous ILS. Posting invoices requires many extra steps over our previous system. Acquisitions is very slow. We have to manually perform many tasks that our previous system did automatically. Lending rules are not granular enough for an RI higher education institution. Staff permissions are not granular enough – staff get all or nothing access to functions. Reports are very powerful but require learning SQL. We've asked the vendor to create many reports for us, which they've encouraged. Koha seems less stable than our previous system. Things work fine one day and break the next. Lack of integrated electronic management is a big disappointment. BWS BWS is a very collaborative company to work with. All of the staff, up to the COO and EVP, are accessible and hands-on. BWS staff are friendly, easy to work with, and very knowledgeable about Koha. Vendor is extremely customer focused and listens carefully to our concerns. They worked very closely with us during the migration phase and continue to offer high quality customer service. The staff is eager to learn about our workflow and needs and to help us overcome obstacles we face with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

I believe the support team at Bywater are very helpful and responsive. We have been experiencing some frustration with speed, and how long it takes to receive search results. We currently host Koha on our servers, it gets sometimes frustrating or more difficult to get to the root of a problem sometimes, whether it is our servers, or old computers, or internet service, or something on Bywater's end that sometimes you feel you never quite get an ultimate resolution, and you just have to put up with the slowness, as I say frustrating, but the support team at Bywater is responsive and so I am hoping to have this issue resolved and to know where to look when speed goes down. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The flexibility of open source allows us to customize the ILS to meet the needs of our users. The ability to collaborate with others using Koha is awesome! Bywater is easy to work with as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

ByWater Solutions has been hosting our Koha ILS for seven years. Their technical support and overall customer service has been responsive and reliable; especially their willingness to help with report writing. The hosting fees have been very reasonable. As for Koha, the OPAC, circ module, and cataloging module have served us well and have been relatively easy to maintain. I am a former acquisitions librarian and have always found Koha's acquisitions module counter-intuitive and complicated to work with, but we have gotten used to it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Some questions I couldn't answer because I was not here when our current ILS was implemented. I really like how it works, especially being in a consortium. I do wish there were other search options - such as searching by genre. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

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

We are still in the process of migrating our existing Koha system to being hosted and managed by Bywater Solutions. So far, the transition is going satisfactorily. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just signed a contract with ByWater and haven't completed the migration. So I left many of the questions blank. I'm We were previously with Insignia from March 2018 to December 2018 but never went live with the OPAC. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Libraries implementing an open source system such as Koha would be well advised to have a technician skilled in the database language to communicate with the vendor as well as to be on hand to troubleshoot issues. The implementation needs to be planned out by the library staff as stated by the vendor and when they ask for something, it needs to be worked on asap. We had a clumsy implementation due to lack of preparation, a lack of understanding as to how difficult the transition would be and a subsequent morale issue as staff tried to work thru the issues. Planning needs to be taken very seriously with a dedicated committee or taskforce and an assigned project manager who schedules regular meetings for input. Everything that is impacted by the system such as databases, etcetera needs to be documented. The vendor has been very responsive but communication has been an issue so screenshots have been a must. The vendor also wanted to implement during the summer reading program which was not well received and pushed to August. However with the implementation planning starting in April, not as much work was accomplished as was needed due to the summer reading program absorbing so much attention. It was two weeks at least to get Overdrive working with the system, a month and an half before item processing could resume plus issues with printing receipts at check out and patron notifications on top of weird catalog searching issues for the patrons and staff. As we gain more understanding of how to work the system, I believe our satisfaction will go up but right now I'm between staff who think it's just great and staff who are 'why did we do this! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We migrated to KOHA in 2013 with PFTS (LibLime) and it seemed to go well but there was one challenge after another. It turns out they did not update the software, did not tell us of potential updates, were not open to integrations/ideas, and support was a challenge. We liked KOHA and connected with other vendors to discuss options. Bywater Solutions was great. They migrated all the information for less than $5000, cleared up errors and more. Since then, THEY tell us about scheduled updates, THEY offer suggestions for new steps, THEY provide excellent fast knowledgeable support. If Bywater moved to a new support I would investigate and be open to ideas as I truly believe they wouldn't move to something that didn't work. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have ByWater Solutions Koha and there are almost no reports available, which makes reporting on or analyzing the collection very difficult. We have to design the reports ourselves. It is difficult to get bugs fixed or to get them to understand what the problems are. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Through the AspenCat consortium, [...] Library currently uses LibLime-supported Koha. In February 2019, we are migration to ByWater-supported Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Bywater as a vendor has been excellent to work with. There are many improvements within the Acquisitions Module that could make the system better (receiving, paying tracking). Also, searching in the system, billing of patrons, overlaying duplicate records, placing and changing patrons holds and other items could be improved. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I have worked with five different LSPs in the 10 years I have been in librarianship, and Koha is by far the most intuitive and flexible to our needs. The staff at Bywater is an amazing resource for support and innovation, and the community is fantastic. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater support is wonderful. We are in constant touch and they are always trying out new ways to educate and help the end user. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- CALYX

top

We moved to open source when we moved to Koha in 2012 and are very happy with it. It is extremely economical, by $1000s per annum. It does all that we require. The support we get from Calyx in Sydney is always prompt, helpful and satisfactory. I catalogue books and journal articles on Koha. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This library does not own any eresources so could not answer Q4 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha -- Collecto (In-Libro)

top

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


Koha -- Devinim

top

Koha is already an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- Equinox Software

top

Number of items in library's collection includes ebooks (purchased and subscribed). Equinox is our support vendor for our ILS. The people are very nice and very willing to help, but it's clear that they are still learning when it comes to Koha. They're more experienced with Evergreen. But they've been very willing to work with us on any request. We never hear "no" when we ask for something (unlike working with Sirsi). Koha is more limited than Symphony when it comes to options for overdue notices. I miss the flexibility we had with Symphony to send different notices depending on item type and patron category. In pretty much all other ways, we have found Koha to be superior. It is much more user friendly and easy to train library staff on. The OPAC is much more flexible and modern looking. It is easier to integrate with other systems, provided you have adequate knowledge of both systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The catalog (Koha) contains records for print materials. E-resources are accessed through SFX. Archives are accessed through Fedora/Islandora/Discovery Garden. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)


Koha -- Independent

top

We have an in house Systems Administrator who, working closely with the community, provides us with the necessary support for Koha open source ILS. We make sure that any improvements or patches to bugs are contributed back to the Koha community. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Funcionalidades, amigabilidad y adaptabilidad alta de Koha, permitiendo niveles de integración muy altos. Al mismo tiempo los desarrollos tanto a nivel de la comunidad Koha, como de la propia biblioteca, permiten hacer sistemas acordes a las necesidades y expectativas de los usuarios. Potencialidad para gestionar tanto pequeñas como grandes bibliotecas universitarias. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The survey does feel like it does not take our setup with a LSP rather than an ILS, where Koha is only handeling our printed ressources. Also hard to differentiate between the support we get from BibLibre and the support we get from the Scandinavian Koha community (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Library of the [...] has implemented KOHA (ILS) with its own resources. As the IT Manager of the Institution, I have performed myself the first implementation of the open source ILS, and I do the regular maintenance. The description above to illustrate the questions answered with "0" above. We have implemented KOHA and DSPACE for our needs and services, and are very satisfied with the choice. As regarding the maintenance, upgrades, and so on, we do it ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We use Koha, it was installed with the help of a volunteer IT expert on the board, and is maintained by the same. All data conversions have been done in house. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have used the open source KOHA and our IT person set it up. I feel KOHA would be able to do much more if someone with more experience with KOHA was able to be in charge of it. We have taken the least expensive route to have an online catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We self-installed Koha ILS, and have not used any support organizations. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have an entirely electronic collection (save for a trivial number of print items). Koha does the trick for what we are using it for. We have not implemented the modules such as circ & serials. We explored some commercial products - but it seemed that we would get little ROI. I think that we are investing too much in this area and are hoping that these systems do things that these systems are just not good at. (Library type: Business; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

It was not an company that implemented the Koha ILS. It was just me, a librarian eager to help this place with so much history to be known by my institution's students and all people in general. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Self-supported, all my tech support comes from Koha sites and the koha-community and koha-us listservs. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

System is up and running upgrades without any problems every release implements new features (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

since we did implementation of Koha and "service" ourselves, there is no company involved - we benefit greatly from the strong community! so I didn't answer the questions concerning companies or organzistions. but we are very happy and glad and more than satified with the support from the Koha-community! (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- Interleaf Technology

top

Unfortunately our experience with Koha to date has been extremely poor not to mention frustrating. We have lost a great deal of functionality that was present in our previous LMS, i.e Innovative's Millennium system (A system that was almost twenty years old). The promise of Open Source software such as Koha has been a major disappointment. Our suppliers are frequently reluctant to develop the system any further to accomodate our requirements and even when they agree to carry out additional work, we then have to wait for the Koha community to approve these changes. Koha has caused increased work for our staff and we have not seen any additional benefit in this LMS, in fact the opposite has been the case in our experience. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

KOHA Open Source LMS as deployed in the [...] requires significant enhancements/developments. There is no inter library loans module implemented at time of answering this survey. The print book management is just ok however its management, delivery and functionality of ebooks is very poor. This was supplemented by the EBSCO Discovery service which is a clunky and unreliable platform. importing ebook records to Koha from other vendors no API is totally frustrating. Book images and jackets are imported from Google images and in most cases there are no images available for users. Images sizing is not scaled thereby providing an overall poor user experience from the front end catalogue.The support call messages received from EBSCO are increasing where EDS service is becoming unreliable. The Koha classic catalogue accessibility for users with learning support requirements requires development to bring it up to W3Cguidelines.The KOHA serials module is not fit for purpose and also requires significant enhancements. The KOHA cataloguing module/frameworks set up requires additional input from staff and used in conjunction with Acquisitions module it can take hours to have orders placed with vendors and minimal reporting. It has been said that the [...] are either very brave or very stupid! This is not a great place to be given that the [...] migrated from Innovative Interfaces Millennium and the [...] implemented Sierra. What a lost opportunity for collaboration and shared services. Overall the open source route has been fraught with issues where the [...] Librarians are now seeking a review for KOHA TWO YEARS IN! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

- When compared to our previous system, there are several major functionalities missing. There are workarounds but they take a lot more time and effort (for example bulk editing of biblio-records) - Acquisitions and ILLs modules seem to be underdeveloped, essential functions do not exist. - The process of reporting is too specialized; it requires advanced understanding of SQL because there in no proper user interface built to run reports efficiently. This is an additional workload on library staff. There are community reports but they are often outdated and are not able to replace efficiency we were enjoying in the previous system which could handle all reporting queries without requiring any technical skills at all. - We are a multi-campus organisation and Koha can't handle it efficiently (for example even as an admin librarian, one has to switch between locations to process all suggestions, also loan limits don’t work as expected in multi-campus environment) - It is very easy to crash the system. - Search results are inconsistent and inaccurate. - The user experience around using Koha is poor for both staff and users. - Visually, design of Koha is very poor. - Koha seems to be very efficient in smaller, standalone libraries. However is not suitable for larger academic institutions or networks. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

note EduCampus is the body responsible for procurement Have not seen the contract so cannot be sure on Q above Very disappointed with the application in terms of functionality Feeling that it does not meet basic functionality requirements for higher education libraries Also very clear that application requires a lot more staff time and effort which is extremely challenging in our context (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)


Koha -- Kobli

top

SIGB's maintenance is performed by library's employees, I mean, library hasn't a contract with a supplier. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

El proyecto KOBLI, impulsado por las Bibliotecas de la Administración General del Estado a través de la Subdirección General de Coordinación Bibliotecaria del Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte ha concluido en 2018. Trataremos de migrar a KOHA (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)


Koha -- LibLime

top

Our catalogers think everything's fine. Chief Librarian thinks we ought to change something (Koha version, vendor, whatever). May end up just upgrading Lib-Lime Koha to their new integrated version rather than changing vendors. Current "issue" is really one that our institution's I.T. and New Media folks raised wherein we cannot access our catalog at URL that was in the previous library directory you gather (it's been updated now!); our IT folks want searches to run through our own institutional URL for search engine stats, but since the catalog lives on a Lib-Lime server that won't work. Somehow or other the vendor's people and our people cannot generate a mutually satisfying solution. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Updates tend to be very buggy when released, often taking 6 months to a year to fix problems. The Liblime version has departed from the full open source product so is not able to take advantage of the open source resources for fixes. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Koha -- Mirko Tietgen

top

we don't manage any electronic resources in Koha yet with Koha, we are already using an open source ILS (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- Prosentient Systems

top

Looking at alternative discovery products including Summon and Dimensions (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The services provided are excellent. It is just that we need to train our staff at least three to four times a year as we have change of staff. But it is quite expensive to bring someone from Australia to Fiji. But it could be done at least twice a year so that we could fully benefit from this. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- PTFS

top

In February of 2019 [...] , the consortium we are part of, will be migrating to Koha with support by ByWater Solutions. We will be happy to have ByWater support once again. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Koha -- PTFS Europe

top

We are considering moving to an alternative e-book vendor as our current one has not been very responsive in support when we have had connection issues. The LMS provider has been excellent but it is where the LMS and e-book platforms interact that we have had problems and the e-book supplier has taken far too long to respond to issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha is a basic product that does what we need, and we don't have to pay licencing and support for parts of a product not needed. So costs of support are kept to a minimum , which is essential in these times of scarce resources. PTFS as a vendor have been very responsive in their support and developments have been initiated following customer suggestions and feedback. Urgent support calls are dealt with promptly, and there is a good dialogue between client and vendor. We would certainly consider other open source products based on our experience with Koha and PTFS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

PTFS Europe are an excellent company that support an excellent product, Koha. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

PTFS Europe migrated us to Koha (Open source) from OLIB. The pre-installation planning meetings were very valuable in clarifying our requirements. The ongoing support post-implementation has been effective and assistance with Authority Indexes has been very valuable. The customization of the Koha OPAC interface has a professional appearance which is valuable to the Library Service. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've been very impressed and pleased with Koha as provided to us by PTFS-EU. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are finding aspects of Koha acquisitions to be a bit clumsy and labour intensive (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Koha -- Theke

top

Estamos considerando sumar al catálogo, un repositorio para el patrimonio documental de nuestra institución, también de código abierto en DSpace. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Koha--CCSR

top

We are very satisfied with our decision, last year, to move to an open source solution (KOHA) via CCSR/Collecto. This vendor now supports 32 of the 50 colleges in Québec Canada. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


L4U

top

This product was developed by a Vancouver-based company, but was sold to a California-based company that immediately eliminated all customer service and implemented a user forum instead. They were charging $500 per year for support, but when we tried to contact them to upgrade, they ignored us, not returning phone calls or emails. The only time they contacted us was when we stopped paying for the support package. There are many issues about the program that we still struggle with, that we thought would be improved with an upgrade, but we no longer want to deal with this company. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)


LBS Lokaal Bibliotheek Systeem

top

Current ILS is end-of-life. Now in the process of migrating to open source ILS KOHA. Expected start date January 2019 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)


Libero

top

The Libero ILS encourages it's users to be involved and contribute to the products on-going development. Their is a strong Libero User Group that works closely with the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Having attended my first User Group meeting this year I was pleased to see Insight Staff present for key agenda issues, presumably to develop a better understanding of customer needs. Some customers spoke of how the CEO Sam Patane had in the past become quite passionate about the LIBERO product and its perceived direction when questioned by customers. Sam obviously is heavily invested in this lifetime project and he appears to be flexible enough to step back and not take criticism personally. Support continues to be overall very good. We always provide honest appraisal and when support has fallen short we do not hold back in voicing our opinions. Hosting our LMS solution has meant our IT department has been freed up considerably. Despite the modest size of the vendor operation in terms of staffing, they seem to be doing a lot of things right. Staff turnover appears to be minimal to negligible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Have only just migrated to Libero and we are very happy. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] has been a Libero ILS user since 1994 and in the last year went out to tender for a cloud hosted solution. As a result LiberoCloud was selected. It involved a smooth transition and has resulted in more stability and easier, faster support and updates to take place. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The main issue with this ILS is the SIP2 communication errors to RFID system and the lack of solution. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Library Management System

top

Our system now manages over 125,000 library technology resources for 100 branches in our region. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Library.Solution

top

We are scheduled to migrate to [...] in Feb 2019. Primarily due to cost savings and resource sharing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Library Corporation has been an outstanding vendor in Library services for our library. We have had very few problems with the system over the years. It just works. When there were problems a call to support was answered by actual people who know their product well or if they don't can find the person who can help relatively quickly. The Online support system is also as responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are quite pleased with our current ILS vendor, though we have considered switching to Koha-Community. We've had good experiences with TLC's support service. We replaced EOS GLAS with Koha-Community for managing Periodicals. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We moved to TLC 10 years ago and have never regretted the decision. The company is always looking to improve both the product and their customer service/support. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Up until the most recent update, the product and service were excellent. No complaints! The most recent update included radical changes, especially to circ and cataloging. These changes were not announced and have impacted our ability to operate and limited the basic functions staff do in their work. Calls and emails relating to the changes, requests for information, requests for changes or modifications have been met with open hostility (literally being yelled at over the phone) or ignored. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We will be migrating to [...] in January 2019 as a collaboration with the other libraries of [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Between cost and recurring technical difficulties, we have already made the decision to migrate to Atriuum and are partway through that process. TLC's declining IT support, arbitrary restrictions for web integration, archaic inventory processing, etc., another ILS was simply a better option. The money and time we will save thanks to BookSystems can be put toward programming and other library services. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

As far as customer support, TLC is top notch and to say it has gotten better is hard to do, but if I rate question the question in the middle because they maintained a high level it looks as though they got worse. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are switching ILSes -- we will be going to Koha as supported by Bywater Solutions. TLC's new LS2 Cataloging is poorly designed in that it removes authority control editing from the end user, forces users into one thesaurus, restricts how users' ability to view authorities, and adds significant amounts of time to the cataloging process. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

At the moment, cost is the issue. I want to look at Open source, but am concerned about the upkeep and support of it - sounds like we'd have to pay a third party for upkeep, or our IT would have a lot more work involved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

TLC specializes in small library systems, it's a good fit for us and the customer service is quick, responsive and outstanding. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

-We seem to need more TLC support as time goes on with using L.S 4.2 so staff spend more time troubleshooting. -We really don't like the next TLC version of software (5.0) which seems to be targeted to school libraries. -TLC version 5 has big changes to Cataloguing component -We don't like the changes to Cataloguing component which from what is on the TCL website is just filling in the blanks and is a dumbing down of what staff need to know to catalogue. Presumption that there are little staff to do work! -Real issue is that existing server needs to be replaced and TLC L.S 4.2 won't work on upgraded server. We would have to go to version 5. -Users and staff really don't like using present PAC with L.S 4.2. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are currently part of a consortia so our decision making is limed based upon that membership. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are part of a system, some questions do not apply I answered as best I could. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very pleased with The Library Corporation's system, which is just right for a small library. Our cataloguer thinks highly of the cataloguing function, and TLC was very responsive to her suggestions for improving the system. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I prefer a more user-friendly system such as Follett Destiny for school libraries over TLC. Transferring to this program was a big challenge. I'm not sure why printing reports have to be on a different page with another sign in feature. I like everything to be in one place. The cataloging printing options are not very friendly either and there's no copy cataloging feature like Follett Destiny that fills in your MARC record for you. I miss that. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

NA (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our system does not manage the electronic resources so that question doesn't apply to us. We would consider an open source product if we could be assured that our staff would have full support and not be responsible for it ourselves if there were problems. We only have three full-time people and we are very service oriented. The other part is that I don't want it to be a downgrade from what we have now. Everything I've seen is horrible compared to what we have now. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Does what we need for our Library. Satisfied with the product and customer service has always been good. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are happy with our ILS vendor and the support we receive. We are in a unique situation where our county is a patchwork of independent libraries that do not share resources in a seamless manner. We would like to, at the very least, move to one shared ILS so that we could function more like a county library. There is currently a consortium of three libraries in the county on Evergreen, so it would probably make the most sense to shift to that consortium rather than attempt to move to another system where no consortium currently exists. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


LibraryWorld

top

At the end of the day, Libraryworld offers the best service for the cost. In an ideal world I would have a much more robust system that allowed me to do things like reserve books, mark books as damaged, and create lists. But as I do not get a book purchasing budget, I don't see the district upgrading to anything more in the near future. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Need more flexibility with designing Reports; customized or standardized drop-down for "location" would be helpful so we don't end up with "ChF", "Ch.F.", "Childrens Fiction", "Children's Fiction", etc, which makes completing annual reports more difficult than they need to be. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Locally developed

top

Estimamos poder migrar a un SIGB de última generación en el corto plazo (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)


Millennium

top

We have almost no contact with III any more. Support really seems to be an afterthought. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Library currently in early phase of migrating from a turnkey Millennium solution to the III Sierra platform hosted in the cloud (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

accept that software is out of date, minimal service therefore available and enhancements unlikely to be available (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We had a failed attempt to upgrade to Sierra this year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

A review of the ILS landscape in 2018 left our library feeling disappointed as the top vendors were still selling outdated legacy systems and our needs could not be filled. ILS vendors really need to step it up and help libraries provide the service expected of customers in 2019, not 1992. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative support seems less responsive than it did in the past. For anything outside of routine problems, it usually requires some sort of escalation to get a response. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] consortium, we will be joining in migrating to the Ex Libris Alma/Primo platform in May 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We will be migrating from Millennium to Sierra within the next few months. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] Law Library is not the decision maker for choice of ILS. Upcoming choice of vendor will be made by the [...] University Libraries. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

[...] migrating to Alma on July 1, 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The initial scores are low because our Millennium server is dying and hasn't been maintained. We are currently in the process of updating our system to Sierra and moving to a cloud-based hosting system. We are staying with III. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Customer service satisfaction has dramatically gone down. I've had several tickets open for over a year. I had one ticket that never got any response at all from a support representative. We finally gave up and just closed the ticket. Although III is not sunsetting Millennium, all efforts are being put towards Sierra/Polaris/new developments. Difficult problems that need to be sent to software engineering are very low priority in the queue. Efforts to escalate the priority of tickets are met with replies that they will look into it followed by silence. Sometimes we are only given a workaround and told that the issue will not be resolved. For example, Millennium will never be able to run on the latest Apple OS. III's response is to run it on an old OS, use a PC or migrate to Sierra. We will be migrating to another ILS this year. Whether it will be with III or another vendor has not been decided as of yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Millenniun ha sido un buen sistema para una biblioteca de papel, pero ahora ni Millennium ni Sierra llegan a satisfacer plenamente las necesidades de la biblioteca como lo hacen las nuevas plataformas de servicios. En los últimos 5 años consideramos insatisfactoria la política que ha llevado Innovative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are under contract to go live with Alma (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

In the most recent years of service Innovative has become difficult to negotiate with for pricing. They have also become nearly non-responsive when requesting pricing quotes. Their customer service has also lapsed in effectiveness and response time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)


None

top

Please remove this library. It has been closed for some years. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)


none

top

We've never used a full LMS/ILS because our library is 100% virtual. We recently retired our book catalog (Koha), because we found it was easier to manage books from EBSCO's Holdings Manager and our users preferred a central place to search books, articles, and other resources through our discovery service. In other words, we replaced our external catalog with EDS that includes some customizations in order to make it work as a book search. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small)


OPALS

top

Support continues to be fast, effective and responsive. Development of new functionality is less focused and incremental, responding to smaller issues rather than having a bigger and overall plan. I remain concerned about long-term sustainability without a driving vision. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

For our small library OPALS has been quite satisfactory. Support response time is fast and the support personnel are efficient and pleasant to work with. We have no complaints at all and are very pleased with the product. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

i love working with OPALS! The customer support and service is outstanding! I receive regular notifications of any updates. OPALS is always trying to improve and enhance their product. They are great! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The OPALS team is awesome! I recommend it constantly! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS has been a dynamic tool in the changes constantly occurring in the library world. The responsiveness of the company (MediaFlex) to customer concerns and needs has turned this into a premier open-source library system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS meets the needs of our schools quite well at an extremely affordable price. The customer support is awesome, going way beyond what they need to do. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall we are satisfied with the choice of ILS for our small special library. Over the past year we have had a few issues with the ILS. We have realized the auto call number printing function does not work for Library of Congress call numbers, and so we still have to type out call numbers for new books. This is not surprising as the system is designed for Dewey. Also, they switched to a secure server and as a consequence our library url was linking to an OPALS library in the UAE. This was quickly fixed with a new url (within 1 day). I do wonder why we were not warned and given the new url in advance. So there may be a communication issue there. Also, we have asked for one tweak to improve functionality for our volunteers, and as this is an open source system we were hoping it could be implemented, but we have been unable to make the change (remove the word "barcode" on the checkout screen as we only use names here at the library and don't have library cards). So all in all, a good year again with OPALS. They are responsive to fixing fixable problems, and they are so cost effective. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Opals is the ILS we have used for the past 6 years, and we find the support incredibly responsive to our suggestions. They provide regular updates to features and offer custom webinars. Of course, the operational costs to our district are a fraction of what private software companies charge. Very satisfied. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Some questions have not been responded to as not applicable to the collection (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The search feature tends to be fuzzy (i.e., automatically truncated or expanded in other ways). Sometimes it is difficult to narrow results by subject because of this. It does not have a serials module. I have not added my serials holdings into it yet because it requires barcodes for cataloged items. I am not sure how to add eSerials to this ILS. Overall, I am satisfied with the product, though. It is inexpensive and has the features of next-generation OPACs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

OPALS continual enhancements have been a blessing to us and our patrons. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We appreciate OPALS and OPALS support staff which we have experienced for more than a decade. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Administration looked at other systems. Since then, one of them is no longer supported. We are happy we chose this system and that we have stayed with it. Support is outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Excellent system and support! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We can feel this program transforming itself. Each year, there are several update releases that help us provide learning resources that students and teachers need. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used this open source technology for thirteen years. Our librarians are very pleased with the system and system support. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

This library houses print resources only and OPALS manages them very well. We cannot not rate how well the system handles digital resources at this time. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS and the support and development team are wonderful. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We use OPALS union catalog to manage ILL resource sharing for over 50 libraries in our region. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very quick to respond to our service and update requests. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Awesome system!!! This year, we started using the IT asset management module to track our Chromebooks. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Group Checkout for elementary school libraries is the BEST THING EVER!!!!!! The OPALS team is Brilliant!! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This union catalog mirrors the collections of over 250 libraries in our North African region. It is used to share education resources, to develop catalogs in libraries that are not automated and for collection development. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Love being a member of the OPALS community. The system meets all our needs. When a new need arises and we ask for change, it actually happens! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our small elementary school library still needs big library system features. This system has everything we need including great service. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Their staff assisted us so much while installing OPALS at [...] . It has worked well for us, we are forever grateful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Just added a third campus library to the system. Excellent support ! (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Just met their rep at a state conference. Told the rep that my colleagues and I love OPALS and their technical support. So glad we found them! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Excellent system and support. Such a contrast to the system and "support" we left. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Un excellent service à la clientèle. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are in our 9th year with OPALS. Our district reviewed other systems this year and decided that OPALS is still the best system for us. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used OPALS since 2007. The system has managed our collection's evolution which is now 50% eBooks and provides discovery search, single login and authentication access to our popular information database subscriptions. Top notch tech support implements changes and upgrades and the service fees have never increased ! (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

This catalog coordinates school library resource sharing in our region. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is a wonderful system! It makes my life easier as a librarian and is also works well for our users. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Even though they are 3,000 miles away or so in freezing weather, I am very impressed with the dedication that OPALS staff show in supporting us. We look forward to using OPALS well into the future! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Easy, pleasant and painless do not usually describe a system migration; adjectives that describe our migration to OPALS, system functions and tech support,. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Awesome service ! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This union catalog serves a widely dispersed cultural and linguistic community. It is used to provide access to resources for our community, collection development and MARC records in a non Roman alphabet language to small, local community libraries. We do not yet catalog digital resources and could not submit a rating for that question. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is wonderful. The pricing is fantastic and customer service is outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

In our twelfth year. Best support of any technology we use. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Great system and support. Response time to our questions is a few to 30 minutes ! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our regional consortium manages interlibrary loan services for 129 small libraries. We use OPALS single login & authentication system to provide access to subscription databases to which those libraries subscribe. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Know that OPALS has very satisfied clients in our school libraries! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library provides print, kits, educational games, STEM resources to 14 libraries in our region. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The library continues to be very pleased with OPALS and the customer service we receive. It handles both English and Arabic books well. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Have used OPALS in our library for ten years. While books remain popular, the system integrates access to eBooks and databases. Their support team listens! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

So thankful for the great service from OPALS. We had a terrific year. Our library staff and our students are finding it easy to research with OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

When we switched systems, one of the competitors warned me that technical support was not very responsive. They have proven them VERY, VERY WRONG! (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very smooth migration and responsive technical support. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Thankful for everything OPALS has done for our library. Staff have all been incredible- and we have an amazing catalog now. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

WE LOVE OPALS! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This is an excellent system for our library. We plan to add digital resource management in 2019 using OPALS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We use OPALS as a union catalog to record holdings in 200 plus library collections. The records are in Arabic, English and French. The system hosting service and technical support are outstanding, (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Very helpful, responsive and knowledgeable customer service. Good product, always striving to improve, and seeking input of their customers to improve their product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Excellent system and customer support! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our previous vendor ceased library software services. OPALS migrated our data, set up our portal and offered Webinar instruction within 24 hours of receiving our request! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used this system for ten years. They improve the program every year with our suggestions and the support for it is the best. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The migration and Webinar training were outstanding this year. Service has been excellent so far. This is our first year and could not rate previous year's service quality. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Software is an incredible bargain for all the capabilities it provides. While many functions are self-explanatory, the flexibility od administrative functions makes it desirable that at least one person on the library staff be adept at experimenting with its possibilities. Company is quite responsive to customer requests. Tech support is seldom needed but has always been prompt in responding to problems and questions. No change from prior years. Email is the company’s preferred method for customers to report support issues and suggestions for enhancements. It has proved to be a very effective way to work with their staff. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Outstanding system, technical support and consulting services. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library has been using OPALS for 14 years. The program changes every year and now manages print , digital, and technology resources. Service is outstanding. They responded to our service request this morning in 11 minutes! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


OpenBiblio

top

The ILS implementation was forced upon us by a lightning strike which damaged the sole computer being used to maintain the collection. Our vendor (who works on our system as a parishioner volunteer) had been working on using a backup to load our collection into OpenBiblio, but had not found the best configuration. He was able to work with the data he had and rebuild our collection from that. (It just seemed unfair to leave it at "no". Conditions were desperate....) (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Polaris

top

We are only moderately happy with Polaris. The issues we currently (that I am aware of) have relate to Interlibrary Loan, managing holds, and with online database authentication. Other issues have been dealt with in a reasonably prompt and efficient manner. We migrated just about a year ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've been on Polaris for over 4 years and it has been superb. Only a couple of enhancements for us would make it even better! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Library systems are not designed to work with electronic resources. Discovery layers do not help with this. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

The development of the next generation web based staff client is progressing slowly with new functionality showing up primarily in the new web based client rather than the traditional staff client causing a "forked development". Currently and the new web based client is focused on Circulation services only. Disappointed in the slow pace of development as it was touted as a full replacement of the traditional staff client. Recent large price increases of the Polaris products have forced out organization into a "frozen" state with our ILS as Innovative had priced themselves out of our ability to pay for anything new or enhanced. The Users Group Enhancement process has pretty much been coopted by Innovative to target product enhancement that they want to develop instead of what the Libraries want driving us to rely on costly "Accelerated Development" projects we have to pay for to better the Polaris product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The State Library is offering free access to Summon but I have heard bad reviews so far, hence we have not moved to it as a discovery layer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Polaris functionality is very good, but there are a LOT of little details that make it harder to use than it could be. Two examples, both in their new LEAP interface. There is no way to add multiple items to a bib record. You have to add one and then copy it as many times as needed or just add them one at a time. When editing an item record, the information about the item is split between 3 different screens. To change an item record from new books to its final home you need to go to one screen to change the collection and another to change the loan period. I could give you a dozen more. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Although POLARIS has been in use within the ILS for a long time, I believe there are other products out there that could greatly enhance our service. Unfortunately, our ILS handles most of the research and implementation so all we have been getting/seeing normal POLARIS updated operating systems. Personally, I would like to see examples of an Open Source product and see how it compares to POLARIS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are in the process of switching from SirsiDynix Symphony to Polaris because of dissatisfaction with SirsiDynix. We can't comment yet on our satisfaction with Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)

Innovative continues to have issues with providing quotes, invoices and billing for Polaris customers which started about a year after the acquisition. The left hand definitely doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Getting quotes is a bit easier but still not timely. Then I get nagged to pay for services or products that I haven't received yet, or decided not to purchase or have already paid for. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are happy with using our windows-based client and not so much being forced, at some point, to use the ILS only on a browser. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Over the past year we had some server issues and while III resolved them there were times when we felt their service and ability to be forthcoming with helpful information was a bit lacking. Hence the slightly lower satisfaction with their customer service (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

While we are happy with the tech support from our Polaris Site Manager, the sales quote process has been problematic this year. For the most part. Also once you ask for a quote, they harass you until you give them an answer, which doesn't always happen quickly here and I get tired of the nagging phone calls and emails. Also the pricing has gone up since Innovative purchased Polaris in 2014. Their training pricing is ridiculous. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Q. #6 & #7 Regarding satisfaction with customer support services. This goes through another library and we do not have to contact the vendor (Polaris). Q. ..considering implementing an open source ILS? Unsure - this is up to [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Polaris ILS product is still fine, but has gotten expensive over the life of our relationship. More significantly, the administrative side of Innovative is still a disaster. Contracts, billing, sales...all still terrible since the acquisition. They just can't seem to fix it. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Ever since Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (III) purchased Polaris the technical support has been poor. It appears that there is a high turnover rate in the top positions and after attending a symposium with III I do not like the direction the company is going. Polaris was a solid product with a consortium of member libraries in support with a clear interaction with its clients. III lacks all of these, whether they attempt to replace these things with substandard attempts to appear they have a relationship with the user. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Customer service has seen a nose-dive since the III purchase. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have seen improvement in customer service from III. However, anytime we need a sales quote the response time is quite slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris is one of the best vendors we work with at the library. Customer Support is always there for us, and while response times to tickets can sometimes be slow, I know that I can call my Site Manager and they will advocate for me within the company. Not like other vendors where you don't know who you're going to get. The new enhancement request process is interesting, and I like that they're trying something new to better fit faster methods of development. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Product has been stable (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've had great difficulty receiving correct invoices in a timely manner. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We were extremely happy until the company was bought out by a competing vendor a few years ago. The personal family feel that the staff and customer service had provided quickly changed with a larger corporate takeover. They don’t care about supporting or developing the Polaris software... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a small library within our consortium, our opinion is not particularly important. Technical problems are referred to the district's IT person. We have no direct contact with the vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have found getting quotes, including basic annual renewals, difficult. The sales support system has too many overlaps so you never know for sure who is dealing with whom and who to really turn to for different issues (professional services requests vs. maintenance invoice vs. technical support, etc.). Their support email system generates WAY too many emails (insists on emailing everyone on the account) and it's slow and frustrating asking for changes. The "enhancements" process is time-consuming and non-transparent-- and then there seems to be no reason or rhyme to what enhancements are chosen. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We received all our support from our system. They do an excellent job. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

For cataloging, the Polaris client we have to use is from 1997, with Windows 3.1 icons. It is awful. So much clicking. Remote desktop connection/terminal emulation. Feels like a huge step backwards. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Since the buyout prices have gone noticeably higher. Not unexpected with Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We loan out "things" and Polaris does not handle things well in the catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

While technological support with Polaris has been steady and has always been good, the quality of other support has been uneven. Over the past several years, there have been problems in receiving quotes for expanding products, difficulties with billing, and unsettling vagueness in the path/direction of new development. Along with this, training support for some products (sometimes products that have been offered for many years) has been underdeveloped. Documentation is lamentably lacking in some products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As part of [...] Library System, our individual library has had no direct contact with the vendor or any knowledge of future considerations. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am not sure I am the correct person to comment on this subject as we get all of our programming through headquarters in [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are scheduled to get Polaris in the new year. Have not used it yet. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

Since we are part of a consortium and the main office handles ILS issues for us it is hard for me to comment on some of the questions regarding support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Customer support has gotten better in the last year but is still not good. Too many mistakes and messages sent without responses. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We like the Polaris product. Worried about future improvements. Company is difficult to work with in many aspects of the business. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Documentation on the support site is often not updated or difficult to find. We have found the integration of econtent to be less than desirable. Specifically Overdrive and especially emagazines. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative bought out Polaris several years ago. Polaris still has a high level of functionality but Innovative is not very responsive to customer needs/ fixing problems/ upgrading current functionality. I hear this often about Innovative from other libraries. I think we're all just hoping it's going to get better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We liked everything about Polaris, but since it was taken over by Innovative Interfaces the customer service is not as good. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a hosted library Polaris provides the support we need in a timely manner. There are a few issues with how records for electronic products display that we are working on, otherwise we are very satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We will be training to use Polaris in the near future. Currently we are using Hoizon. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

We migrated from Sirsi to Polaris in April of 2018 and have been very happy with our new ILS! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Electronic Resources: good integration with CloudLibrary. No integration with RBDigital yet. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The system needs to be rebooted at least 3 or 4 times a month. It is difficult to find the records regarding how many patrons or materials we have in the library. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Library system (Regional headquarters) determines our system -- not an individual branch such as we are. We don't choose. We live with what we are provided. [..] has about 8200 items. the Region has about 213,000 bib records in the system. We are just a small fish. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS is coordinated regionally through [...] as a [...] in the province of Alberta. Many of your survey questions seem targeted towards large urban libraries with their own ILS. We have no real say in our ILS... it comes with being in the region. I do sit on the [...] Advisory Committee, but beyond that there isn't much input that I can provide in response to the survey... So, I'd rather not receive future iterations of this survey. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are currently migrating to iii Polaris from SirsiDynix Horizon and will "go live" 1/8/19 so it's too soon to tell how smoothly the transition is or how much we like the product. It looks promising, though! (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Finding lots of software quality issues as we continue to grow the number of transactions we put through the system. A little concerned about the amount of resources that will be put into this ILS system now that there is more focus on a new discovery layer. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Customer service continues to be adequate, but the technical support of our new server has diminished over the last year. Sales support has also declined - finding a rep to return a telephone call is a challenge. The problem may be that we are a stand-alone, small library, and probably not worth much effort. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

None at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

There is no change in service received from Innovative - neither better nor worse. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The other number I just submitted was including ebooks. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)

The sales/account staff at Innovative Interfaces Inc are at best semi-efficient and at worst either non-responsive or difficult. The former Polaris staff are the only staff who are customer-oriented and they continue to provide excellent support. There's a new staff member in charge of documentation for customers and she has listened to customers and is on the right track. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

our services are a branch of the [...]. Our technical resources are done through our main Head Quarters. I do not have any control of that. I also do not have an available printer with my system. Many of these questions are not applicable to this library. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I haven't answered some of the questions as they don't pertain to our specific library or are beyond the scope of my job. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

In general terms, we are satisfied with the Polaris product. We have been on the Polaris ILS since 2002. We prepaid (4 yr ago?) to include the web based LEAP interface for when it finally reaches full functionality. Having said that, the acquisition of Polaris by Innovative was at the price of open communications in product development and product support. Pre-III you could initiate support, ideas, purchases with simply a verbal ok, things took a few minutes to a couple weeks (avg). Post-III it is more like a few days to a month. The Polaris support people in Syracuse still answer the phone; it is when they have to include III for answers that the delays begin. Should the Syracuse connection ever end our loyalty would probably go cold. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The cost of Polaris is so far out of line with what other vendors provide, both in product and in support, at a much more reasonable pricing structure. It leads one to wonder how much longer Innovative plans to keep it going, in which case it pays to start researching other vendors now. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Still happy with the product and its functionality for the most part. The long-promised mobile app turned out to be very expensive and not sufficient. Customer service was more responsive under the original company, but Innovative is working on improvements. We are upgrading to the latest version in the spring and look forward to finally integrating the RBDigital collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

no idea of the items in this library (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We have a great Site Manager ([...]) which is always helpful. Overall the biggest issues are the ILS trying to communicate in real time with our third-party vendors. Sadly most vendors only supply access to discovery, but check out and account info remains rather fragmented across different platforms. I suppose Polaris/iii could work harder to leverage these vendors into building a more modern API which opens up much more discovery AND access. Oh also, the OPAC is a bit clunky and is visually not done very well so we are somewhat locked into Polaris' outdated page layouts and hard-coded HTML (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very happy with Polaris it is very easy program to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

• Technical support is good. It's difficult to reach representatives to ask questions and acquire more information about their solutions. Innovative roadmap and direction is unclear. • It could be a little more user friendly but with the future move to LEAP this might improve. • The catalog search function is a little unreliable because it usually returns several items that do not seem to have anything to do with your search. Staff have learned to deal with this and adjust searches accordingly. • Improve the procedure for sorry notices. The system does generate a cancelled hold notice. It can’t differentiate between a patron cancelling their own hold, or the need for the patron to be sent an automatic system notice. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am satisfied with the service. However, this is only a small branch library, which is part of Parkland Region, and is administered from headquarters in Yorkton. They have tried several systems in the past, but I believe Polaris is working well for them. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Polaris is a really solid product. However it was bought out by III, which offers significantly less customer support, much more slowly, and at a much higher cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am a new hire and have only been working here for a couple of months so cannot answer the questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

The ILS that the library has currently is so expensive every year and is not user friendly. The training is so expensive also. We had this company when we first came on board and has not worked for us in the time that we have been with them. We are currently in the process of moving over to another company called Apollo Biblionix. This company will be a lot cheaper every year and at the same time will be able to take care of our needs better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

While member libraries in our consortium may be interested in an open source ILS, it would take the agree and investment of every member library to make that change. Since we have been mostly happy with Polaris, I don't think what would happen anytime soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall a smooth transition and satisfied with Polaris. I would like to see Innovative/Polaris keep a focus on serving consortia needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We and provided our system from headquarters in [...]. The decisions are made with that Board of Directors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)


ResourceMate

top

ResourceMate has been purchased by Harris and we await to see changed. Their customer service is absolutely fantastic. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Sierra

top

It is possible that our dissatisfaction is misdirected, as almost all of our communication with the vendor goes through our consortium. We are often told, "III support won't do that" or "III support isn't responding to our request." We take the consortium's word for it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are delighted with Marmot and Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sierra it is just a new version of Millennium. Innovative needs to create a new product or rebuild it. We have lots of issues with no solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I wish III would reduce its pricing structure in order to retain more customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We will migrate to Alma (incl. Primo) as part of the [...] library services platform project, probably in early 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The main issue we have with our current ILS is that we are not seeing much in the way of improvements to core functional modules in the system or evidence of keeping up with the competition. Even with a new enhancement process, enhancements that customers have been asking for years are mostly not taking place. We feel most of III focus is on new products and new platforms (SierraWeb) and not enough improvements are being made to core modules. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Would like to see the open source options above mature and gain a solid user base. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra's now seriously outdated. We're reviewing our future requirements, but are taking our time because next-gen systems are currently in development (FOLIO, Innovative's Sierra replacement) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Considering switching from Encore Duet to Ebsco Discovery Services. Innovative proxy is not keeping up with the times. Considering switching to Open Athens. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

There is a very aggressive deselection process in place as library space is devoted to more space for students and replacement of print with electronic resources. [...] is using Sierra and Intota along with other products to manage electronic resources. We are unhappy with the lack of integration between the different products which create manual mundane processes for library staff. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

New releases cause more problems and things not working that were functioning before, need more fixes after every new release. More API's are available to fill in where the ILS is lacking. API's come at a cost and library staff doesn't have the knowledge to /implement API's. External companies are used to upgrade existing catalogue records at a cost. WebOPAC has not been upgraded for many years by ILS provider, libraries have to upgrade themselves if they have knowledgeable staff. The new MyLibrary! App is a total new subscription, and is not a free replacement for AirPac used by libraries before. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

KOha has a strong Swedish network! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative's sales staff is the worst I've encountered, both professionally and professionally. There's a rotating cast of characters who appear responsive at first, and then end up vanishing from the face of the earth, never to be heard from again. This makes it hard to add new products and services, and in those rare moments when contact is made, the negotiation process smacks of the worst used car experience ever conceived. If migrating to a new product wasn't so onerous, we would have pulled the plug a year ago. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Although the system was delivered on time in 2014, the functionality agreed-to in the contract of 2013 HAS STILL NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Holds in a multi-type consortium are a particular weakness. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We recently got a new sales rep and this has made us feel better about the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently in implementation with Alma with a Go-Live date of June 3, 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)

We will be moving from stand alone to hosted in the next FY. In addition to "items" we have 101,685 bibliographic records for e-resources with no item records attached. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

none (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Increasingly we need other service partners (e.g. ExLibris) for optimal access to our electronic collections. Linked Data interface solutions are being investigated. Hope III keep its hat in the ring. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are watching the market closely right now. In the next 3 to 5 years we expect to see great shifts in the "next-gen" platforms that will be released. We will likely then engage in exploratory and RFP processes at that time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

these types of decisions are made by our [...] consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been pleased with the new Sierra "Encore" online catalog. Although it does not give us full functionality as the consortium chose not to add periodical interface, we are still happy with the product. we find it easy to use and more substantive than the previous "Classic Catalog" version. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Starting December 2017, [...] migrated our locally hosted Millennium to vendor-hosted Millennium. Then Feb-March 2018, we merged our Millennium system with that of [...] into one Millennium system. After working out all the bugs, we migrated to Sierra. [...] and [...] are now accounting unit 1 and accounting unit 2, respectively, at [...] This was a fairly atypical project for Innovative, and there were some issues (like timestamps in different time zones) that iii had to work out for us for the first time. All in all, they did a pretty good job. Not perfect, but the price didn't break the bank either. The project managers are thoughtful and professional and importantly, library people. That helps communication. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Product roadmap is unclear because of senior staff changes at the Vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are and have been struggling with the staff and financial cost of our current ILS - we feel as though we are driving a luxury car when what we really need is a basic plain vanilla car; trying to keep up with the cost and staff requirements with our budget (has been cut at least a third in the last 5 years) and staff (reduced to a third in the last 5 years) is tough. We are not happy with any of the potential choices: OCLC WMS (loss of local records to master record system), ALMA (too complicated), TIND (a relatively new system, so not truely tried yet), Lucidea (probably not complex enough). The cost of maintaining our current system is already an issue, and we are close to reaching the maximum price point the administration will tolerate. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have had a very negative experience with Innovative Interfaces. We were down for 2 weeks this summer after an operating system upgrade. We are a turnkey site. The company was very unresponsive during that 2 weeks. The staff interface is still from the 1990's with some administrative tasks using a character client. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Tech support from Innovative I would rate a 3 out of 10. There is often a lot of back and forth, especially if the issue involves Innovative and other vendors of electronic resources/tools. Sales support I would give a zero! They are consistently unresponsive to inquiries about new products or issues with our existing products. Our primary (only?) reason for staying with Innovative when we added EDS this year was because we decided "the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know." The other ILS's we investigated seemed underdeveloped compared to Sierra and we've been with Innovative since we implemented automation in the early 1990's. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Support for our ILS has gotten better with easy questions. The more challenging questions or projects have long wait times and then even when scheduled may result in downtime outside of the anticipated period. It seems there are more resources for triaging but senior Help Desk or Support staff are gone. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

For question 4, we don't use ERM (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

It's a time of big change in the industry, so there is a lot of uncertainty about where we go from here when it comes to MARC. Innovative seems to be doing a lot of development related to BIBFRAME, so we'll need to see what they come up with in the next 2-3 years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

My impressions of the ILS and customer service are based on my experience as a cataloger. Users of other modules may have different experiences. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The discovery environment seems to be changing again, this time towards AI. Therefore, we are keeping on eye out for Yewno and III's Context-Engine. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative aren't very good at asking users what they should be focusing on for future developments. Projects and modules are left unfixed or abandoned to begin new projects that customers have never expressed an interested in. However their customer services have generally improved and they now have a way to log enhancement requests for existing products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The salesperson we worked with during our move from Millennium to Sierra gave us some misleading information. We would not have made the same decision had we received correct information from him. We negotiated in good faith and he did not. We have communicated this to the company and received sympathy but no satisfaction. We have a new salesperson now, but she is unable to make good on the promises from the old salesperson. All in all, a terrible transition. Months later, we are still waiting on some of the modules to be installed. The terms of the contract as such that we don't have a lot of recourse without losing a lot of money. I wish we had gone with another system. I've never had this kind of deceptive experience with a vendor and I've dealt with many automation vendors over the years. Absolutely the worst experience ever. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Migrating to Alma/Primo in June 2019. Discontinuing EDS and Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Innovative has made it clear that they are not going to invest in fixing issues with the current/legacy products that they charged us an arm and a leg for. They are supposedly developing a "Next Gen" platform that will address the sad state of the public interface (WebPAC, Encore), etc. While I understand the business case, it doesn't excuse the lack of attention to many of their products over the past 5-10 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We feel that the $25,000 annual cost for Sierra for our small community college library is ridiculous. And we don't want to spend an additional $2,000 per year to add the module that will allow us to easily develop lists of overdue items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Highly disappointed with Innovative. would like to change to Alma, but has to be done in Cosortium and unlikely to be soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Our choice of ILS is constrained by our consortium; we can (and must) change products/companies only if the consortium does. Innovative customer support is still hit or miss: sometimes we get a quick and useful response to a ticket, sometimes an incompetent response, and sometimes no response (for weeks, months, or even years). The sales department continues to be slow to respond to product inquiries and quote requests. We had a particularly bad experience implementing a new add-on purchased this year: the technician assigned appeared to have no idea how to implement the product such that our local IT staff ended up doing most of the work in remote sessions on his machine; sales reps had told us that the product could work with their consortium product when, once implementation began, it became apparent that this had not been done before and they didn't really know whether it could be implemented or how to do it (they eventually managed to, more or less); and Innovative declared the project closed and shut down the project management site without telling us, when we still considered the implementation incomplete (and had been repeatedly telling them so). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)

Sierra Tech Support seems to behave in phases. Sometimes it will be great, and then it will drop off for a while. We can't take on a project like a new ILS at the moment, but we're always watching developments from all the major vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative's ERM has not been updated in nearly 10 years. We are using LibGuides for front-facing lists but need a better back-end management system for e-resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Unfortunately, customer service at Innovative Interfaces continues to decline noticeably. It is of concern that the parent company, which is a venture capital firm, has made steep cuts to personnel and this appears to be at least a factor in the decline in customer service. Communication about new products and services is close to non-existent and often we must escalate our service requests to get the assistance we need. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Al ser una biblioteca de la [...] , la Gerencia de servicios bibliotecarios es quien tiene respuestas más fidedignas pero creo que es importante que nosotros también participemos. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is an unstable programme with not very responsive customer support in a different time zone. Our systems crash frequently, updates cause further instability and any fixes are always slow in coming. Our last updates has caused the system instability (programme won't at all open for an hour and has a tendency to either freeze or respond as if it was drugged at least once a day) for the past 6 weeks with no end in sight. The system, apparently, was designed to accommodate warehouse stock. When searching the catalogue, it organises the volume of data on screen in a way that's easy to navigate but does not allow for even an apostrophe in the wrong place... So using Google to confirm titles or search terms is necessary. It is a headache. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Vendors need to move to more open systems and allow greater integration across platforms. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The public catalog interface is very poor in some ways. Google and Amazon have managed to implement interfaces that use natural language, are forgiving of typos, and let searchers use the back arrow to move back in their searches. Sierra's catalog does none of these things, which are pretty basic browser/search engine functionalities. New users are constantly stymied by these deficiencies. Even library staff have difficulties with searching. The Sierra staff modules also have hangups, though they're generally functional for most of what we need. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Apologies - had to guess on some of the questions above as it is not within my province to know the information. As a librarian I use the system but don't deal with implementation details. Hope this helps. Cheers (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Although Innovative promises a lot, development is not keeping pace with other vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are not currently using the Innovative (Sierra) system to it’s full capacity, but for the functions that are being used we are satisfied with the product. Innovative customer support: They have moved to a new “ticketing system” it took a while to get used to the new way of logging a problem. Documentation is not always situated in one place of reference and it can be frustrating for the client. The helpdesk support is excellent … especially since they have a call centre in Dublin, which is within South Africa's time zone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The information for the branch is reflected in with the [...] Public Library, the main location. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

Customer service is poor. ILS staff turnover is high. More focus on making money than developing the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The software mostly does what we need, but not completely. Upgrades always break existing functionality, then they do patches, which is annoying. Customer support has never been good, and seems to be getting worse. It can take weeks or months to get a ticket resolved. Often support's answers only point us to documentation, which is terrible and doesn't answer our questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Some of our options in Sierra are limited because we are part of a consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sluggish customer service response time. Incomplete and unexplained solutions. Some lost data during migration. Product itself is stable overall. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative is very slow in responding to questions and problems. Their customer service is lacking to the point of being non-existent. They do not support the most basic MARC functions. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

In the past year iii moved its sales and technical support out of mainland China. We continue to receive support for Hong Kong, Singapore, and USA. We are beginning to catalog Chinese books with bilingual descriptions and LC subjects headings. So far the system is OK for this purpose. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall we have like III as our ILS vendor, but in recent years customer service has been spotty with long periods between responses. We understand that there has been some changes to the management in recent years and we hope to see things turnaround again and to see the level of customer support service we had originally when we migrated to Millennium in 2005. At that point we had excellent customer support, with nearly immediate responses. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Maintenance costs are very expensive and the funding for the University are decreasing (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We'd like to look at FOLIO, but it seems to have been developing slower than promised. Particularly, we're not sure it will offer consortial functionality by the time we are seriously looking at migrating our ILS (perhaps 3 years). For this reason we may go to Alma instead. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

Support from Innovative has been bad this year, no answers to our questions and really bad support from the sales team. It feels like they no longer want our business. We will have to stick with the cheapest product because of severe budget cuts but would not recommend to anyone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We migrated to Sierra in August and all 3 of the products we purchased to enhance our system (SSO, Fine payment API, My Library App) have not yet been successfully implemented. I'm extremely disappointed with their customer service, which has been true for several years now, and even at high levels of management issues are not being resolved. In hind site, I wish we would have gone with a competitor rather than implementing Sierra. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

none (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would like to see a LSP that address and integrates all of our metadata needs (e.g. print, electronic, IR, images and archival materials) in one place that can also work with the University's learning management system and other software while maintaining the most basic library functions, such as circulation and inventory. One does not seem to exist that can meet all of our needs but we are excited to see the progress with FOLIO and hope it will inspire other vendors to approach library systems more broadly and with better flexibility. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Sierra tiene integración con Bibliotheca y Overdrive para la gestión de ebooks, pero deberia haber trabajado en la integración con algun otro proveedor. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Please note for question #4: We use Encore Duet to manage our electronic resources. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative Interfaces, Inc. has failed us on crucial hardware/software support migrations, where it was difficult to get them to commit to action that would keep our hardware and operating systems up to date, even at an additional price. Their support has been better with their ILS application, but even then, we see a large number of issues get sent to "software engineering" where they can sit for some time without response. Our major state universities are migrating to Alma/Primo, as are our neighbors in South Carolina. Community within the region was also a consideration. We might have considered open source alternatives, but the annual maintenance charges are competitive with salary costs for running our own, or support costs from OSS ILS vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

the turnover in III ILS reps is crazy, we have had 4 reps in the past 6 years, two of which lasted about 6-8 months. Not happy with Canadian support (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

The ILS vendor has exhibited increasingly poor levels of communication, slow and inadequate responses to technical support tickets, and little initiative to escalate concerns or issues when technicians encounter "roadblocks" in solving recognized problems. Most of the core products work well, although the Statistics Module often produces wonky data. Newer functionality often did not/does not work as advertised, is only compatible with certain proprietary products, and/or is technologically lacking. One example is a product called Mobile Worklists, which should facilitate the inventorying of an entire collection through barcode scanning, but the software can only work with Apple products of a specific generation and higher, is not Bluetooth compatible, and is plagued by technological glitches such as double scanning. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

There are just too many pay-to-play exceptions to our ILS being as truly functional as it could be. It is sad that being able to maintain and allow access to information is controlled by those who are so very concerned with profitability. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Current system quite capable of meeting our needs better, but we are too small to afford expensive add-ons. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra is really a larger system than we need. If it were not for the [...] consortium, it would be too expensive for us to afford. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is very important to us that our system has well developed API:s so that we can add/integrate other products. We don´t believe there is one system that can do everything a library needs. We have created an app that presents our collection better and help us to give our patrons better service. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We really like EBSCO's Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of the [...] system so the ILS is negotiated through them for 66 member libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The quality of Innovative's support and sales department responsiveness have continued to decline over the last year. Development seems a bit off target, too. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

As Google Search uses the benefits of crowd informed searching and Artificial Intelligence to increase relevancy of results. It has surpassed the ability of a librarian to provide quick answers to routine questions. If Open resources are enabled in a discovery service, the number of open access titles found in discovery results is split about 50/50 with paid content, but paid content volume in results will continue to decrease relative to open access titles. In about 5 years, only the most affluent institutions will be subscribing to for-fee articles and other content through vendor licensing. 10 years from now, journals will either go to a form of open access, or disappear as people ignore titles that are behind a paywall. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We were very dissatisfied with customer service from Innovative. After trying (unsuccessfully) to resolve several issues and receiving an exorbitant quote to upgrade, we migrated to OCLC WMS in July 2018. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We are a part of a consortium, so we do not interact directly with the ILS company or customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My impression of Innovative's Sierra would probably be more positive if we hadn't started the year (after the database was re-scoped) experiencing extreme slowness and then having to shut it all down and go offline for several hours on our first business day of the year. Too bad you asked today. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

I have looked at other library catalogs and been impressed with the scope of information provided. I feel that our catalog is becoming more mediocre rather than cutting edge. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We're eager to explore FOLIO, but don't have hugely high hopes at the moment that we'd be able to implement it anytime soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We used to be stand alone with III, but rejoined the local consortium. It manages our print resources just fine. Our consortium just purchased more pieces to manage the electronic resources better. We no longer deal with III directly on support issues and our consortium opens all tickets in a very timely manner. III seems to be making positive strides in improving customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

consortial decision making about Integrated Library Systems is fraught with complexity (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We are a small library and sometimes it is a pain when sierra times out when we are not using it. We have new librarians within the past 8 months so we are just learning. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

In [...] we have routine serious connectivity issues when using Sierra. This causes freezing, restarts, and lost data. Sierra is built on 1990's Server-Client architecture and has no business being sold and implemented on such scale as it is. The only reason Sierra and Innovative is still viable is that their clients are trapped by the cost of migrating to a better product. It should be Server-Browser based. That would solve a multitude of issues and allow for individual user logins, valuable analytics, breadcrumb trails and logging, robust secure connections. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

Much of our interaction with III goes through our consortium, so it is hard for us to evaluate direct support. Encore implementation delays, for example, may ultimately be at the consortium side of things, though we are generally told otherwise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are disappointed by Worldcat Discovery, especially when sales promised us we'd be able to search all of ATLA content with a remote connection. We are now looking at EBSCO EDS as an alternative, but we have decided that we really need 1) a traditional webpac with emphasis on fielded searching and 2) a combined search of periodical articles. We don't see much advantage to a discovery layer for graduate students, except where it combines periodical indexing sources. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am not very happy with the system running so slow at times and I am not sure why some things get changed unexpectedly. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I think the create lists function of Sierra is not effective in many instances. We have been experiencing slow downs or freezing when doing searches for patrons. It is VERY frustrating to have a patron asking a simple search question and we are not able to answer because Sierra freezes up. It has not been fixed for well over a year now. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

The system meets our needs. There have been system quirks but they are eventually corrected. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just upgraded to Sierra. Implementation plan was impressive and implementation process was handled very smoothly. Other libraries in Ireland have moved to Koha (open source) and their experience would reinforce my opinion that while open source may have potential in the future it is currently not fit for purpose for a large, multi sited library. [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just completed an [...] tender for a replacement ILS, Discovery service and Reading List application. The final announcement has yet to be made by ExLibris, but we have signed contracts and are awaiting the press release. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

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

Parent company is American so will not implement changes for branches in Ireland (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

disappointing, laborious, frustrating, does not inspire confidence, higher that expected frequency of outages, hold notifications is a systematic issue, slow, hard to get in at start of business, search function fair (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Our ILS decisions are made by main campus, [...]. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Library implemented at least three upgrades this past year -- we had not kept up. The difference with these upgrades was that there was much better alignment and communication between the vendor and the Library; the vendor provided solid recommendations on the sequencing of the upgrades and was on stand-by as we went through the process. (The past few upgrades were not so aligned ...) We were very satisfied with the improved functionality, troubleshooting, and the overall support we received. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Unfortunately we are not responsible for purchasing our ILS since we are a college among a larger university. Otherwise we would go with a better ILS. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are fine with the product and the company. The mandated support, by our consortium, is awful. Awful. The functionality is unknown in the full context, due to the mediocrity of the consortium support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just added VITAL to our tools in order to catalog our Heritage Center. That is going very well for us. Yes, Innovative is expensive, but so are qualified IT personnel. There is no way we could handle Open Source ILS and all the grief that we hear bout some libraries are having.....and still having. Thank you.. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS is owned and managed by [...] Library System, a regional public library system covering two counties with 29 member libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

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

We are part of a III resource sharing network ([...] ) and would not migrate unless the entire group did. If a suitable open source ILS were available and it had appropriate support, I would certainly look at it. Please note the [...] is a branch of the [...] Public Library, and not (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're part of a consortium and the way the ILS was set up means we're unable to do certain things. For example, we can't bulk delete "e" records, we need to pull the full record set for the database and replace it. Acquisitions is a complicated process in Sierra and tends not to be used. The Sierra ILS is expensive, so the smaller libraries within the consortium (with smaller collections) may want to move to a system that's more economical, even if it has less functions. However, many of the libraries within the consortium use most, if not all of the Sierra functions, and would need to find another product with more bells and whistles for us to consider a move. Our EDS Daily Update involves 131,373 records including print and electronic resources, which is significantly larger than our print collection alone, as referenced above. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

As we participate in a consortium, we are bound to the ILS that the consortium chooses (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The development of the open API has been a tremendous help for patron loads and patron authentication with 3rd party systems. I assigned an 8 to satisfaction with functionality because of certain bugs that have yet to be resolved which freezes the application. Having used other ILS products in my career, I am delighted to be able to work with III Sierra. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sierra was easy to learn after using the older iii system for over twenty years. If we have problems, we submit them to our Library System's Technology Department who is authorized to get answers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

My consortium handles all details. Librarians do get to vote on some changes. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Things have settled down in Sierra and customer service has improved but some developments promised have not happened yet (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

There are less choices in terms of the next generation of Integrated Library System (ILS). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The company could be better to handle the internationalization issues. We have some problems that depends on the lack of internationalization. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra has terrible reporting capabilities for the individual libraries. We have to contact our library consortium office for many of the statistics we routinely keep. Plus, the manner in which statistics are displayed is appalling. Under our stand-alone system, it would take me approximately 30 seconds to compile the monthly statistics I needed. With Sierra's statistics program, Decision Center, it takes me at least half an hour to compile the circulation statistics I need every month. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is a very expensive system and we expect that customer service would be extraordinary. Unfortunately, it is very ordinary. Training sessions are exorbitant. We learn a lot from the user group community. Sierra is a good product and they have added many enhancements which are moving into forward into a next generation system. We are looking forward though to become part of the open source community with FOLIO. Unfortunately, it's too early for us to make a decision right now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are a part of a federated system who is the main contact for customer support and overall maintenance of the automated system. They purchased the product for the system, so the survey is not completely accurate. Some of the questions do not apply to my library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Innovative Inter. Inc is still nickel & diming their products rather than some full complete ILS. A mobile interface that is extra?? Barely off the ground web Sierra? Cloud options that are not savings but sky high cloud costs. Support -portal phones are clearly designed to mitigate human first contact and difficult when human is needed. On the plus side the EU Dublin group is good. Some individuals on support are quite good. On the fear side it looks like iii is gearing up to resell the whole ILS rather than evolving improving what is. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

The core product is pretty good and the updates have continued to be trouble free, a pattern established in the last 3 years. The service aspect varies wildly, between excellent and non-existent depending on the topic of the ticket. We haven't had a sales rep in 3 years, and so we lack a point person for covering our interests, though we've been able to get quotes on new products pretty quickly. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The vendor promised functionality that is just now becoming available after more than 3 years. This has caused expenses in materials delivery. The system overall is reliable but the response on needed improvements has been slow. Our consortium staff work hard to customize the service. It is very valuable to have an ILS for this small library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Generally, Innovative Interfaces is very good. Their customer support is good. They sometimes put out new releases that aren't tested as well as they might be. They are good about fixing the bugs. The WAM proxy is not as good as it used to be. It seems to have some nuances that cause problems (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As an academic library, we've not had bad customer service from III, but we talk to many publics who have. III hasn't been in touch at all with us, and apparently has been avoiding contact with other academics, which is odd in a contract renewal year. As a result, we're shopping around for a cheaper deal - we don't need bells and whistles, but we do need something that's economical and doesn't require anything close to a systems librarian. As part of the last negotiations, III did provide us with shared management services hours - a godsend for our beleaguered staffing situation. We don't do discovery, mostly on the philosophy that smart students at a liberal arts college don't need dumbing down services to find information. If we get WMS, we might implement their discovery - which is at least vendor neutral. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While we are not considering moving to a new ILS any time in the near future, we did do an ILS "landscape review" in 2018. This involved speaking to peer libraries (similar in structure and size) on various ILS systems to gauge impressions about the open source and proprietary systems on the market. One of our key takeaways from this process is that Evergreen might be the ONLY ILS out there that would be worth considering for an organization of our size and complexity. That said, we understand that III is in the process of rolling out its new "context engine" product, which they say will eventually lead to an entire overhaul of the underlying architecture of the system. Depending on how this turns out, it could completely change our impressions over the next few years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Library's e-resoruces are managed through a different system by ProQuest, not the ILS. ILLs are also managed through a different system, VDX. Some responses have been left blank because they are not applicable to our library. We deal with an intermediary, rather than directly with customer support, so cannot answer those questions. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Customer support follow through/speed is not great unless an emergency. Need better reporting tools. No sense of participating in a proactive, problem-solving community. Efforts to communicate with library leadership are minimal to non-existent. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Integration with other library systems could be improved & development of new functions for ILS seems slow (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Current number of items listed includes all where the previous number looks like it only included books in stacks. Also, you should have an additional choice of N/A and/or Don't Know. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative Interfaces hasn't evolved with technology trends much in many years. The ILS really needs to continue to adapt to current technologies and needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Soutron

top

Only a limited amount of systems relevant and affordable for a small specialist research library like ourselves. We are very dependent on ILS supplier for catalogue maintenance and development work. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We selected Soutron Global out of four other competitors and selected them based on product price, flexibility, and customer service. I have been extremely pleased with Soutron and would recommend them wholeheartedly to other small libraries. I enjoy how flexible the product is to my needs in the library, and the support staff has been wonderful. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Spark

top

Upgraded to Spark: web based ILS December 2017. Huge amount of improvements/changes made to the ILS since. Still a work in progress. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Spydus

top

The move to web-based applications is progressing well, but brings with it all the challenges that new technology presents, including managing exceptions of how things "used to work" versus the "new normal". (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Would love an integrated LMS and RFID system from the one company (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Civica reluctant to support upgrade to Libraries in last years of long term contracts while possible single LMS for statewide consortia being discussed (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Civica is currently changing the various modules from client to web based versions. Some of the products are coming out with lost functionality, more development is required before modules are released. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Albany Public Library has been working coldly with Civica over the last year to integrate the Great Southern Regional Consortium with 12 other regional libraries. They have been very professional and prompt in helping through this integration. While Spydus does lack in some areas in regards to performance and flexibility overall we are very satisfied with their product and support and are very happy to continue working with them into the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Help and support has deteriorated. Public Library focused which does not meet our needs. Lack of documentation, help guides and poor training. EResources are not adequately addressed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are only a little behind but aren't currently using the latest version of Spydus so there is some functionality we don't yet have access to. I think they are forward-thinking with their development and genuinely do care about providing a good product and meeting the needs of their customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] Libraries migrated to Spydus this year. It has been a great leap forward from our locally hosted version of Horizon to a cloud-based SaaS system. Civica have been reasonably responsive throughout implementation and warranty, however we are aware that they have won a large number of tenders in the past 18 months and we will be expecting to see appropriate growth in number of development and support staff in this region. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not use the print solution (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Responses to support calls can take longer than we would expect. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Lack of UK support which is over-reliant on one or two individuals. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

While we understand that the development of the web based clients is needed to remain competitive, our less than stable connectivity and local situations mean that we are persisting with the thick client version for most applications. It appears that Civica has also taken notice of the 2017 plea that the basic operations required by libraries are kept robust and reliable. It has been felt that this has taken a back seat to the creation and development of functions that not all of us wish to use. It has taken us a while to get to understand the new Help Desk ticketing system although its functions are an improvement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Civica decided to stop supporting local services in Taiwan, which is awful to the customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

A large number of issues that are raised with the system go on to be classified as bugs which can then take a considerable time to be rectified. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

There are not a lot of ILSs that are geared towards small academic libraries such as medical libraries. Most of the ILSs with targeted features to manage Electronic resources tend to be for big cashed up institutions. While the less expensive options are tailored to public/school libraries with larger physical collections. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)


Symphony

top

With SYMPHONY we appear to have to pay for certain functions, reports, etc. that were free with DYNIX, which the library board does not appreciate. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Just migrated SD Symphony from local server to SaaS hosted system. Excellent experience and best decision for us. About to migrate from ELibrary to Enterprise Catalog. Out of the box not really what most academic libraries expect ... you lose functionalities that have been part of OPACs since they ran over terminal connections ... have to pay SD extra for them or install free add-ons. Suggest an additional line of inquiry ... the trend to move from locally to remotely hosted systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I put middle of the line for customer support, because we've literally never called on vendor customer support in the last year. All support goes through the consortium. My impression is that the technical staff are satisfied, but they're located at a different institution, and I'm not sure. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Cost is our primary consideration when thinking about the future of our ILS. We are satisfied with our ILS and it does what we need it to do, but the annual maintenance is increasing every year and will become unsustainable for us. We need to negotiate with the vendor to see if we can lower it first and then consider migrating if that is not possible. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The system is fine apart from an appalling search functionality (which is really important!) (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

thoroughly recommend Cosortia model as Systems Admin is first class. Also easy and ecomomical when adding new items. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our Library has not implemented several modules available from SirsiDynix but what we have implemented work very well to meet most basic needs. We are now expanding the suite of products from this vendor to add the discovery interface. We have not yet started using the BLUEcloud suite of products. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I find SirsiDynix's product Symphony clunky. Their processes run on schedules, which, way back when, we used to call batch processing. The delivery of scheduled reports has multiple issues per month. We've also discovered that there are "dead zones" during the day where if you check in material and it triggers a hold, the patron will not get the email or text. SirsiDynix's answer was we can't change. How customer focused is that? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

After we implemented the Symphony/BLUEcloud/Enterprise using SAAS, we never looked back! As a consortium our libraries are happy to be using Symphony/BLUEcloud. Finally, we have an ILS we consider to be a “utility” that "just works". This allows our librarians to focus on serving our community. The ILS is always advancing and providing us with new features and tools we can put to work. It is nice that SirsiDynix provides functionality relevant to the public library market. All in all, we are a satisfied customer. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We're concerned about pricing. Annual increases exceed the rate of inflation. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been happy with our standalone SirsiDynix and EBSCO Discovery systems but will migrate to ExLibris as part of a statewide consortium and are impressed with what we have learned about ExLibris so far. We are looking forward to the increased opportunities for networking and integration this will allow us and hope to realize efficiencies in handling both electronic and print resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Very satisfied with SirsiDynix. Good product. Excellent people at the company. Excellent customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

The above are Title Counts, including electronic 1,524,166 and 369,618 physical items (2017-18) (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix has a very mature ILS that includes most of the functionality we need, but they are putting their development efforts into new products that we would need to purchase to take advantage of. We have high maintenance costs just to access what we already have with very little benefit from any new development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We just converted from Millennium to Symphony so survey is based on the planning and conversion and only limited experience of time using the product for public service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Support is still pretty good compared to prior to the Sirsi and Dynix merger. The software also functions fairly well. We've had a case open with them since 2012. The problem was sent to development but they have yet to address it in any release. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not use our ILS for e-resource management. Our system was implemented 22 years ago, so we have no real memory of its installation. We are aiming to move to a linked data environment in the near future, but will likely retain some sort of ILS for acquisitions management. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are moving to their BlueCloud and Discovery products (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix products are very stable & reliable, but somewhat overpriced (particularly given the nickel-and-dime approach of charging for almost every module & service, even when on a high-cost contract). Development timeframes for release of major updates & new features are far too slow. For example, turning Enterprise into a mobile-responsive platform is years behind the rest of the world, with repeated delays even after it was scheduled for release. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The customer service from SirsiDynix makes up for any lack of functionality. We rarely run into issues that aren't immediately addressed. I talk to my sales and account reps regularly. We are very happy overall, though also looking forward to the development of all of the Blue Cloud modules. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

What I like best about SirsiDynix is the structures they have in place to get customer feedback into the product development process before the products are too far along for significant change. I also greatly appreciate the relative openness and transparency of SirsiDynix employees and executive team. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] L) is seriously underfunded. The current Symphony Workflows is the lowest tier of software due to lack of funds for anything more functional. Seriously hoping for the mobile version of Sirsi soon! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have fully appreciated SirsiDynix' products and support, and are only now researching products through our recent merger to ascertain the best product from our new group perspective. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sirsi has great customer service, they are responsive and generally quite thorough. We also like their new-ish SaaS reporting software bluecloud analytics. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sirsi's new BC Mobile product should be more flexible like their Enterprise product is and allow us to show MARC fields that we want shown within their product. It has taken what seems like forever to have a true mobile catalog. Also the Enterprise Catalog should support Google Tag Manager but doesn't. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall we are very, very satisfied but also have been a little disappointed in the timetable for upgrades on existing products and bug fixes in new products. Like many vendors, SirsiDynix seems to be overselling its capabilities -- offering a little more than they can deliver in a timely manner. Enterprise and BLUEcloud Mobile app upgrades and development seem to be about a year behind what had been promised in 2017. Enterprise still doesn't have a version that can be easily formatted for mobile devices. BC Mobile isn't as good as it could be. I think my library is 5 years behind where we should be in serving our mobile users. We need to catch up before we lose them. ... Still, I don't want this to sound angry. I'm rooting for Sirsi's development team to come through, the sooner the better! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Originally, we had our own in-house Symphony server, then our catalog and patron DB were merged into our consortium's ILS (in 2010). To be fair, Symphony and the Enterprise OPAC can be quite good when configured properly; unfortunately, our consortium seems to be challenged when it comes to that (ahem). As for Evergreen, our consortium's directors have already voted to migrate to it in the coming Spring. I can only hope that it's configured well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

The support provided by Sirsi Dynix is excellent, help staff understand our setup, our problems and are generally able to assist us in resolution. The support portal is good. Documentation to identify how to customise the product could be better, searching manuals is not intuitive, language/jargon used in manual doesn't reflect real life practice. Symphony workflows is clunky, and we look forward to implementing web based products next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Don't know about the discovery interface nor the open source. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

W would've moved off the Sirsi platform years ago, but we cannot afford to do so on our own, so for the past decade have been trying to convince the rest of the consortium to move to another ILS. Sadly, inertia is a thing that works in Sirsi's favour. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We have looked at a few different ILS plans trying to find one with a discovery service that we can afford, but have not had any luck. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

We are only partially in the system. Our library runs on resourcemate. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)

BLUEcloud development is too slow and and not RFID compatible. I'm no longer convinced it's worth the wait. The SirsiDynix Support Center is an amazing resource though. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

I am the Manager of a branch library. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

You have sent 11 requests to complete the survey, one for each branch library. I will complete one only for the organization, as we are a Regional library service and libraries function as a group not individually. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

With regard to the questions for which I did not provide a response, since we're a member of a consortium, we have no direct contact with the ILS vendor, so I did not feel qualified to answer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Scores are lower than in the past due to the time it is taking to release fully functional BlueCloud products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've been researching the features offered in the ILS marketplace for several years and are very disappointing in the options. It appears the product we're currently using is considered "best in class". It's like the 1997 Jack Nicholson movie "As Good As it Gets". This can't be all there is. We're hoping OCLC's Wise lives up to its promises, but that's all they're selling at this point--promises--not a product. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our library consortium supports our use of SirsiDynix Symphony. The consortia staff have been fantastic. SirsiDynix has been fairly glacial about providing promised feature upgrades, missing their release own schedule. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sirsi has lagged behind for a while - road map items always being pushed further out. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Still waiting for SirsiDynix's eResourceCentral software to manage our eresources correctly. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been fairly happy with SirsiDynix for the last several years, and the same is true this year. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

There is some discontent within the consortium about the cost and effectiveness of Symphony and there are murmurings of moving to a new ILS. However, some libraries are perfectly fine with Symphony. As the administrator, I have few problems with this ILS and have been very pleased with the support SD provides. Their staff are generally very helpful and knowledgeable and solve issues within a reasonable timeframe. Coming from a different job that was dealing with ByWater Solutions as a vendor, SD is leaps and bounds more helpful and efficient. I love SD's support portal and the communities that they have where I can communicate with other library staff to come up with solutions. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The company overall is good and provides a stable product with excellent support, but I am disappointed in their developments of their fully functioning web client, BLUECloud. When the best they can offer is a copy of WorkFlows, something is amiss. Their competitors are very much ahead of them. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

En febrero de 2019 pondremos en funcionamiento Alma y Primo de ExLibris. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

SirsiDynix is fairly non-responsive. As staff, we often joke, well there is a “workaround for that” when there is something that the software is unable to do and my jaw dropped when once a SirsiDynix support staff member used that very term in a call with us. We recently reviewed ILS products and in the product demonstrations, SirsiDynix demonstrated features that were supposedly available but we had never heard of as a current client. When I asked who those features were available to, we were told all customers, yet those features had never been shared with us. This lack of communication and lack of responsiveness to customers is a continuing story of our experience with SirsiDynix. Just a few weeks ago, an update causing their mobile app to be inoperable was put into place without notice, causing our customers to be without access for over a week. When we notified them that they were not selected as our vendor in the RFP process, they sent us an unsolicited termination notice of our current contract saying that we sent them notice that we were terminating our current contract. (We were not! We want our new ILS in place before we terminate!) With the termination notice, they also wanted us to sign verification that we were within the circulation limits of the contract so they could charge us if we weren't. I understand contract enforcement but waiting until someone is leaving to milk them for all their worth - talk about burning bridges! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

I would consider an open source ILS if I were not part of a consortium. I did not choose Symphony as we are a branch of a consortium. Symphony serves our needs adequately. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

While the Vendor has finally released a new version of a mobile app, it is always a paid upgrade. Their Free upgrades to their Bluecloud suite are still years of bringing them up to speed as a fully online ILS, and their Library catalogue has still not been able to implement a responsive design, a web standard set years ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

The current ILS has been in our consortial environment since the late 1990s. It does not adequately support our needs in a shared environment. The vendor has been developing a "new" interface, but it is laid on top of an existing system and is not a completely new product. Very disappointing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

There seems to be an increased tension about developments the vendor feels the customer should pay for as 'extra' and the customer viewpoint, which is that those developments should be part of the existing offer as the product develops to keep up to date with changes (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sirsi have a track record of over-promising and then failing to meet delivery deadlines. Their on-going failure to provide effective electronic resource integration and an interface that flexibly allows config for volunteers (data-protection issues) is a significant deficit. They are decent and fair, just not as effective as they should be. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are extremely dissatisfied with the company's support , which has grown worse this year. We contracted with SirsiDynix for Platinum Premier services and we will be cancelling this as support does not respond in a timely fashion (cases take weeks to resolve) even though we are paying for a premium support tier. We are often left to figure out issues on our own with documentation that is severely lacking. We have begun testing BLUEcloud, but it should still be considered vaporware. Cataloging is missing basic functionality, such as the ability to print spine labels and import records. Development is slow with the most recent quarterly release due in November, being pushed to January. That's right - 2018.11 is being released in January even though 2019.1 is scheduled for then. The company's inability to execute is further demonstrated with multiple delays for a responsive release for Enterprise, the online catalogue. This was initially expected in Q4 of 2017 and has now been pushed to Q2-3 of 2019. It shouldn't take a company of this size 2.5 years to do something competitors have had since the early 2010s. We do not recommend any customers to sign on with this company unless you love disappointment. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)

Blue Cloud, the "next gen" ILS, is years and years behind. I get the sense that current issues aren't being addressed, as they'll be solved when Blue Cloud comes out. If it ever does. The core ILS is solid and very configurable, but the staff interface (Workflows) is dreadful. 2 years after it came out, customers were asking that it be dropped. 15 years later, we're still stuck with it (although some small improvements have been made). (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

SirsiDynix heavily promotes its BlueCloud offerings as a way forward for institutions but we have found that these offerings often have incomplete functionality when released and are not sufficient to allow us to move away from Symphony. Overall from our perspective customer service has declined in the past year both in terms of response time and quality of response. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I think it might be worth stating that our consortia organization looks at the assembled software as the "library services platform" which includes the library staff interface(s) to the ILS, the ILS itself, the OPAC, analytics tools, e-content tools such as EBSCO Discovery Service and eResource Central. So our responses to the 2018 survey in terms of the ILS are specific to the Symphony ILS and not the staff interface which would be either WorkFlows or BLUEcloud Staff. The most disasisfaction we have encountered over the past year are the (1) Discovery/OPAC, and (2) library staff interfaces, which I am not indicating in the 2018 survey response. For a survey such as this, it could be viewed as being a bit too specific to break out the interfaces for public/staff and ask these to be rated. The business logic of the ILS itself might be rated as a solid, flexible, extensible solution, but the interfaces could suffer from poor UI design. SirsiDynix customers will certainly begin to see this as the BLUEcloud interface for library staff will allow them to perform tasks in a new UI but it will interact with the Symphony ILS. The III Leap interface is another example of a new staff interface that stands in front of the Polaris ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Vendor has undergone changes resulting in confused billing, missed contracts, and very slow response to urgent technical problems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We recently completed an RFI and elected to stay with SirsiDynix Symphony. We will keep abreast of FOLIO development. In our estimation FOLIO may be worthy of consideration a few years from now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

While I am generally very pleased with Symphony and SirsiDynix in general, I wish the screens were more responsive to use in split screen view. Additionally, editing records in Symphony is very awkward and not something I like to do for more than minor adjustments. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We find the automation system very cumbersome to use. Many terms and functions are counterintuitive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

The partnership between us and SirsiDynix is real and we are seeing the benefits, helping design and test new functionality and collaborating on bespoke work. However, they really need to get a LOT faster at delivering the BLUEcloud suite of functionality. They also need to get more academic ebook publishers in eResource Central. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

This past year we migrated our cataloging system to Sirsi Enterprise. This technically combines print materials with electronic sources, with each appearing on different tabs in the same page. However, the electronic search results are essentially the same as what would appear in EBSCO Discovery, which is our electronic resource discovery system; yet direct access to the content is sometimes limited; sometimes, a user must log separately into EBSCO for access to items. Users also must opt to log separately into EBSCO to use certain search filters and functionalities. We had hoped that Sirsi Dynix would automatically import barcode numbers and user ID numbers, from our old system. We have had to manually re-barcode each print item instead; importing user ID's is a work in progress. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Migrated from Innovative's Sierra in 2018. We were on Dynix then Horizon until 2013 when we migrated to Sierra. We left Innovative and returned to SD due to service/support and pricing. We missed SirsiDynix as a company, though we felt bound to leave after Horizon development was discontinued. They pursued us and I feel like we got a good long-term deal, but we have suffered from losing direct access to SearchOhio & OhioLink (via INNReach). SirsiDynix indicated a quicker implementation of the INNReach API than has been the case, and we are now preparing to use the less efficient (but available now) Resource Sharing Broker setup. This is going to require some double entry we had hoped to avoid with the API. Innovative sales and support was shockingly poor in comparison to our past experience with SirsiDynix. And they PRICE GOUGE. Everything is expensive and there is little discounting, though they did make fair offers when they realized we were indeed leaving. We just got fed up, everyone wanted to leave them...so we did. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

appreciation for all the learning tools Sirsi puts out regularly; frustrutration about the differences when moving between BCA, app, & integrated receipt printing (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very satisfied with our SirsiDynix Symphony ILS. Support is excellent. New products are always in the pipeline. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

SirsiDynix has been a competent vendor for many years with their main ILS product - Symphony. Their BLUECloud suite of products leaves much to be desired. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

This program requires a lot of clicking to get things done. It is not user friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While the Symphony Workflows client is pretty complete and very reliable, the BLUEcloud product interfaces still need lots of work as far as having a uniform design and providing the overall functionality staff need to have available to want to use these new products on a daily basis. I believe the developers, engineers, customer support, etc. are all working very hard to advance the BLUEcloud products, but like many businesses today they just need more resources available to make it happen. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix is very responsive to new ideas for improving and updating the uses of the ILS and the Blue Cloud products are fantastic. So glad I made this choice 6 years ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Most of the backend ILS issues are dealt with by the [...] so we cannot speak on all of these questions because we do not deal with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

I don't know accurate answers to some of these questions and would have preferred an option to say ":don't know" (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Lots of positive comments regarding Statewide library service (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of [...] consortium so service requests are done by [...] staff as our interface which has worked very well. Many of the benefits of the ILS product come from the consortium process rather than the ILS and the main issue is that the ILS cannot give us functionality for some consortium items we would like to do. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Disappointed that not all pages of Enterprise discovery layer are fully mobile responsive (as at time of this survey). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

In fact, I can say that Sirsidynix cannot fully respond to academic library requirements. I think system architecture is mostly designed for school libraries. If I list the technical reasons with the main headings, there is only EDI vendor integration for acquisition.; even if your records are authority, OPAC does not make cross reference.; online penalty payments are only possible with paypal.; Bulk data update is so hard that it is only able to do system librarians with technical knowledge. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We have just changed library systems. SirsiDynix Symphony has enabled us to implement EDIFACT integration with our suppliers and integration into our finance system. Enterprise has enabled integration of our physical and ebook stock onto one catalogue. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We also use Blacklight as the user interface since the native interface is not very good. We are watching and waiting to see how Folio's development progresses. We are currently in year 3 of a 5-year contract with Sirsi Dynix and will start assessing new ILS's nearer to the end of that contract. We share the system with another [...] and if we were to move to open source, we would either have to support them too or break the relationship so we have to take this into consideration before changing systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We migrated to Ex Libris Alma in December 2018. Considering that this survey is for 2018, I responded with my opinion on our old system. If you would like to have my opinion on Alma, I would be glad to do that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our university closed [...] a few years ago. Please remove it from your record. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)

Front line staff find the product unwieldy in its inability to open multiple screens or access a variety of information simultaneously. Reports are also practically illegible with the assortment of program coding surrounding the actual data being sought. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Wish the web based (BlueCloud Circulation) was ready for prime time! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Have worked with SirsiDynix for 18 years and have been very happy with them. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in wait and see mode for FOLIO and to see what other products might emerge. We are in a contract with Sirsi that ends after 2020 and may switch then. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I primarily follow the guidelines and suggestions of our consortium. My personal frustration is with the reports part of the Sirsy/Dinyx program. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

not sure of certain questions as the CEO is on leave and I do not have access to all information. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Collection size is an estimate, inventory planned for 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

This is one library within a regional public library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

There's a quote generally attributed to Churchill which goes along the lines of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I think that this mindset probably applies to experiences with just about any ILS system after a migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library really doesn't get involved in the choosing of an ILS so I guessed at many of your questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Responses are based on our new implementation of SirsiDynix six months ago. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

This system works in the background and is implemented by the [...]. I have no imput or knowledge of how they implemented it prior to my time as the Librarian (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The number in the previous question includes all record (physical and digital). E-book maintenance is a real problem for small libraries using EBSCO E-books with OCLC and Symphony. OCLC has addition, deletion, and update files. Symphony cannot do the update files because there is no way to find a matching number. If the 856s are updated, then I cannot update those changes. Those with API experience say that they cannot add a MARC field on which to match either. The matching options are hard-baked into the system programming. That means that some unknown percentage of EBSCO E-books are inaccessible from my catalog. I have spoken with OCLC, SirsiDynix, and EBSCO about this issue and it is going nowhere fast. I want to continue to provide E-book options from my catalog but cannot. I could delete every EBSCO E-book file but they would be out of the catalog. I prefer patrons to see all the options in EDS and our catalog. By comparison ProQuest Ebook Central only has additional and deletion files (no updates). This is a massive logistical and maintenance problem for smaller libraries across multiple vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The company has a good vision on BlueCloud but need to delivery it and transfer its vision to reality soon, particular for the functions for expending virtual services. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are migrating to Alma/Primo, to go live July 1, 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Support is very responsive to any issues we have. Assigned consultant aids us with our issues/questions on a monthly basis. We have had virtually no down time in our almost 4 years with SirsiDynix. Everyone there has been a pleasure to work with from system administrator viewpoint. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just migrated to a new system in November. Many of these scores are based on the new ILS and are hard to compare to the previous ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

My answers are pretty negative in regards to Sirsi since we bid for their new system ca. 2011 originally, that they had to scrap since they ran into major problems during the development. That is why, they gave us their older system Symphony instead, that is not a relational database. So, there is a lot of duplicate data entry. - We were happier with their older system Horizon, though. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall we are satisfied with SirsiDynix customer support. The Workflows client is bulky and an extremely dated user interface that staff greatly dislike. This aside, we have few issues with the ILS as a whole. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My consortium communicates directly with Customer Support, so I don't have a valid response for those questions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are happy with Symphony. The only issue we have is the increasing cost of the service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our library has the system hosted at the vendor's secure site and use the vendor's management rather than having our own system administrator on staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a k-12 institution, with a limited 2 person staff dedicated to libraru automation and discovery, we have a hard time keeping up with development and implementation of SD services. Customization that takes a lot of time, management, or upkeep, is rarely an option for us. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have not had any troubles with our current ILS as far as performance goes but because we are a small library, the costs are a major factor in which ILS products we consider. Since we are nearing the end of our current contract, we are in the beginning stages of researching to find a product and/or service that will meet our needs in a similar fashion at a lower cost. Thus far, the only service we have researched is ByWater Solutions Koha based on a recommendation from a nearby library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

No comment at this time (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Questions to which I responded with a rating of 5, would be more appropriate and best answered by the [...] Library System, which handles these areas of ILS support for our library, which is a member. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sirsi has developed a service model over the past few years and now have people in place to make it effective. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

This past year we moved from WorldCat Discovery to EDS due to staff dissatisfaction with WCD and continuing disruptions to service affecting our students. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There is a National Consortium who act on our behalf. This has been invaluable to centralise the expertise that we would not be able to manage at a local level due to our limited resourcing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As part of a consortium we don't have direct interaction with the vendor so perceptions are based on the end product. Overall the product is stable with minimal disruiptions to service. The product meets the majority of our expectations with development and enhancements making required improvements. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The [..] LRC has had SirsiDynix for the past 20+ years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently using 3 different interfaces for circulation which can be a little confusing (Workflows client, SymphonyWeb, and BluecloudCirc) We are trying to utilize Sirsi's web based products but they are still in development and it looks like to will still be quite a while before they have full functionality. As an administrator there seem to be many different interfaces that you need to know to manage the system. On top of the 3 mentioned above there's Enterprise and E-Library for the public interface, Webservices, and Bluecloud Central. Also API for custom programming so I'm having difficulty getting other people up to speed on how to administer the system. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

On the whole we're very happy with our ILS. Their customer support is great and they are responsive to our needs. There are only two things we don't like about it. The first is that the staff UI seems very dated and many steps have to be taken by staff to accomplish simple tasks. We shouldn't have to open a whole series of windows to update a patron record, then check-out, check-in, renew, and place holds for that same patron. Once the patron record is open, we should be able to accomplish all of that with tabs within the record. Secondly, the reports REALLY need a better selection of functions for sorting the results. I should be able to sort by call number with spaces considered as part of the sort, instead of the sort ignoring them. I have to export the results to Excel and then sort them by hand for them to be remotely useful. The patron UI for the online catalog is better and patrons like it, though it goes down a lot. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix though dated has worked fine and we haven't had any problems with it. EDS though has been problematic as it doesn't work well with non-EBSCO databases. Due to budget constraints and EBSCO's refusal to negotiate better on pricing, we've moved from EBSCO databases to Gale and ProQuest ones that do not work in EDS. As a result, we were forced to look for a new discovery and in the process, figured we might as well limit the number of systems we have to run by also migrating from Sirsi. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Local SirsiDynix Support Team is excellent. Very reliable - delivers an outstanding customer service Negative: Delays in delivery of responsive web designed Enterprise catalog site solution that provides an optimal user experience. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)


V-smart

top

I exclude the archives collection. If included, it is around 500,000. Not all items are counted in the LIS. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We plan migrating into a Consortium formula. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


Virtua

top

We are satisfied with the existing setup of ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] is part of the project[...] , as most [...] University Libraries. We are at the begining of the implementation project of Alma and Primo VE. The migration is plannend for November-December 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We know that Innovative, which bought VTLS and hence the product Virtua, will not develop it much more. Their support is good, but there are few new updates or substantial improvements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Although we are happy with our ILS, it appears that Innovative is no longer developing it and we may be forced to migrate because of this. When we do, we will consider products from other vendors, and are interested in a cheaper product if possible. If Virtua were not being phased out, we would probably stick with it. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our situation is somewhat unique in that VTLS was acquired by Innovative several years ago and Virtua is no longer being actively developed. So we're in the early stages of migrating to a new ILS in an attempt to be proactive rather than waiting for Innovative to determine a concrete end of life date for Virtua. Several of the VTLS support staff migrated to Innovative and they continue to provide excellent service overall but it's been clear from the start that Virtua was not a priority for Innovative and would not be developed. Thus, Virtua lags well behind other platforms in terms of features and functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Cost for license renewal is getting expensive year by year with our limited budget. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

VTLS VIRTUA is basically a sturdy software for managing the library catalog as well as other basic library functions. However, it lacks the capacity for integration of the futuristic concepts like linked data and does not possess the capability for online management of the e-books. We have to develop and manage two separate databases. We are looking for a software which can handle storage and retrieval of references to print books as well as online access and retrieval of e-books, if possible. This will save us time as well as duplication of resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


Voyager

top

When we implemented Voyager in 2001 it was very suitable for our needs at that time and still performs those functions well. We now require that same functionality and extra new functionality especially with regards to eresources management and bib and holdings data manipulation. A more modern system would provide this so we will be looking at the ILS market in the near future. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our information security folks disabled our ILS four years ago and then somehow lost the data that would have permitted a revival. ExLibris no longer does new installations of Voyager and suggested we move to Alma, but I don't think it's met all the FedRamp requirements (to say nothing of whatever our IA folks would demand) and it appears to be far more complicated than we need. Management doesn't appear to be interested in addressing this need, so we're relying on the tools we have. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are in the process of migrating to OCLC WMS. We have signed the contract. Migration will start in early 2019. I feel like this survey should ask about ERM functionality--satisfaction with current system and whether it is part of ILS migration consideration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

While we're not actively seeking a new ILS at the moment, I am keeping my eye on the market with the expectation that our current ILS is nearing end-of-life. I do not believe the direction our current ILS vendor is taking will best serve our needs. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Voyager as we have implemented it is very restrictive and limiting. We plan to go with Alma in the next year and look forward to being able to offer better services to our patrons and make better use of staff time. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have started a migration process to Alma and Primo VE. So far the migration is on schedule and the vendor has been very helpful. We use open source solutions for many of our services (e.g. Islandora, DSpace, OJS) but the ILS solution is not yet mature. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] Library is one of about 100 [...] that are migrating to Alma/Primo in the coming year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are part of [...]consortium who have signed contract to move to Alma in 2019/2020. Responses in this survey relate to Voyager system currently in place, not to Alma which is not yet implemented. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Community support is waning for this product and upgrades are getting further apart. When we get the funding, we will move on. In the meantime, we will continue to adapt to its limitations regarding acquisitions, ebooks, and other staff tasks. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We get our ILS through [...]. Therefore, we do not make any decisions solo. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

THIS # INCLUDES BOTH THE CAMPUS LIBRARIES' HOLDINGS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Voyager was good for what it was, but it is inefficient and out of date for our current needs. The university will be moving to OCLC WMS in July 2019, and the [...] will be dissolved at that time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of state implementation of Alma/Primo but do not expect to go live until January 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We implemented Summon 2.0 in 2015 for discovery and export MARC records from the ILS (Voyager) into Summon, but it's not acting as a discovery layer per se. Note re: approx. # of vols. includes print and electronic materials plus microforms We still anticipate making a decision about a new ILS in the next 12 months. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

13 academic libraries in [...] have signed a contract for a new consortial shared LSP. This will be a new consortium, and could have more [...] . The comments above reflect an old Voyager system (it chugs along, reliable, support is good but there is really no development) with Summon discovery and Intota ERM/360 Link. Intota has been a disappointment as it was not developed from its initial form, and Summon is current but has some issues that we have discussed with Ex Libris, but some important ones have not been resolved, e.g. accurate date sort has been a sore point. We have talked with Ex Libris about it. We are currently in the onboarding/preparation phase for Alma/Primo, beginning implementation proper in Feb 2019, and go-live date December 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are part of a statewide consortium that is in the beginning stages of transitioning from Voyager to Alma. This process will occur over the next 8 months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

We really don't have a choice in what ILS we use because we are part of a consortium that runs our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] I state-wide consortium will be migrating to Alma within next couple years. We anticipate that 2019 will be our last full year using Voyager. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

When the consortia started its process to develop an rfp for a new ILS, I had very much hoped that there would be an open source option. At that point, we were following developments with OLE in particular. Unfortunately, such systems have not matured to the degree that they were considered an option, by the time the rfp was issued. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

A decision was made as a system to move to Alma. I would like to check out what Folio developes into in the future and will keep tabs on its development and rollout throughout libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Voyager system is increasingly dated for our need and we are actively looking for a sustainable options for ILS. Folio development is definitely an exciting progress that we are paying close attention and we are likely to implement if Folio successfully matures. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We presently have good relations with ExLibris. We would like to see how the field of Next Generation ILS's develop before making any move. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

A large consortia of [...] higher education libraries are moving to Alma in 2019-2020 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)


WorldShare Management Services

top

Collection count now includes electronic titles (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have a very mixed reaction to the system. Most of us in technical services are struggling, because we have gone from a very sophisticated system to a system that is less flexible, and is less feature rich. Reference and instruction seem to be much happier with the system. The upside for everyone is that the switch was part of joining the [...] consortium, which is truly dedicated to deep collaboration, and gives us a real voice to OCLC. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We migrated to WMS this summer. Mostly happy with it, support, etc. but still a few minor 'bugs' to that seem specific to us which OCLC is working on. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Number in collection includes physical material and eBooks. OCLC continually updates and enhances the ILS with new features. Unfortunately, over the course of the past year, we have experienced an increase in downtime and lags with the system that OCLC identified as system degradation. In order to combat this problem, they have implemented system repair work several times. Their work in this area has decreased the number of downtime occurrences. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The majority of problems relating to our ILS comes from staff working with each of the modules. We were an early adopter of Tipasa, making the decision to move from ILLIAD, after being told by OCLC that ILLIAD was going away and Tipasa would be fully integrated into WMS. After nearly two years that has not happened, we recently learned that the larger Tipasa sites are considering abandoning Tipasa and moving back to ILLIAD. Our ILL staff are seriously considering making the same move until Tipasa is fully integrated into WMS. As far as the public interface a large number of complaints comes from users who assume that a "View Online" link is to an ebook. In a majority of the instances it turns out to be a 856 link to the publisher's website in the Marc Record. To address this problem require edits to the Marc Record by our Catalogers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The reserves module needs improvement (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

While the system functions well, it needs a lot of hands on attention at the library - hard to keep up with all the changes/improvements when the library is small and understaffed. In fact, 18 months after implementation/migration, there are still elements we have not implemented or really gotten the hang of. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

My cataloging time is decreased for copy-cataloged items, and very easy for those needing original cataloging. Circulation is a vast improvement over Koha's set-up. Great trainer, very responsive support staff at OCLC. Set-up and preparation of the collection went smoothly, for the most part. We're likely to add Prospector in the future (2019) to assist with our resource-sharing needs, as we now have a lot of medical and health-allied materials and courses. I do not know what we are looking at in the realm of open source, or if we are. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Because WMS is not removed from OCLC the way that other true ILSes are, there are limited options as far as creating local edits to bibliographic records. Currently, there are also limited options for customizing the Discovery interface, although those are being rolled out soon. The reporting function is also limited unless you subscribe for an additional fee to Report Designer, which we do not. There is the possibility to perform more advanced functions in all of the areas I listed using OCLC's APIs, but that requires some programming knowledge and someone who has the time to devote to a project that one could argue should just be a functionality more readily available in WMS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While there will always be problems with design and performance, we appreciate OCLC's ongoing commitment to continuous improvement in the user experience on both the staff and patron sides. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

FTE 5,500 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The discovery interface is not the best but it does the best in the given circumstances. EBSCO discovery system may be a better choice but due to budgetary constraints, we will continue using the WorldCat Discovery interface. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

There are features that we grew accustomed to in our previous ILS that are not yet implemented in our new ILS. Many of these come from the foundational design differences between the products. The flexibility of the old added to its complexity; the simplicity of the new translates into some limitations. However, our new vendor has exhibited more interest in improving their product than our previous vendor demonstrated in pursuing us to migrate to their next-gen ILS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC as a community usually feels transparent and collaborative. Its nonprofit and cooperative nature help support an environment that more consistently puts community needs first. The system lacks some important functionality, but system development is happening at a brisk pace and the enhancement process is conducted in a manner that generally feels responsive rather than opaque. Put simply, WMS for me wins the "most improved" award. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We moved to WMS because we simply could not affor our previous ILS (Sierra). While this move saved us the money we anticipated, its functionality is far less robust than advertized. To complicate matters, the migration to WMS was nothing short of a nightmare. User support leaves much to be desired. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

I appreciate OCLC's cooperative and nonprofit nature. It is more responsive to librarian's needs and concerns. They have created products with incredible versatility. WMS allows analysis to a level and extent far beyond what I've seen elsewhere. The customization abilities allow us to tailor reports and forms to our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Quite a bit of functionality improvement in the last year. Pleased that the company takes its users' suggestions for new features seriously. Some features will only be available in optional modules, but these are an expense a smaller library cannot justify. The Discovery module is definitely improving with useful new features. Overall, system is easy to configure and has good integration among its modules. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

This has been a good choice for us. The discovery interface is a big imporvement over our previous ILS. We do not have many staff and this product has not required as much staff administration time as our previous ILS did. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There are worse vendors. On a plus, the WMS knowledge base is integrated with the catalog. OCLC provided a cost-affordable solution, though we have concerns about price increases. Support cannot help with in-depth questions, such as a recent one involving EZProxy. Improvements to the system are incremental, if at all. Public searching functionality is primitive -- adequate for undergraduates, but not researchers. Staff functionality is _heavily_ siloed, which seems to mirror development. Does anyone at OCLC talk to others outside of their work department? Like other vendors, OCLC develops for the current trend, and seems to have forgotten the code or how to support older technologies like EZProxy, or even how to search or print call numbers. On a plus, WMS is great for small libraries who never had an online system, or had separate systems for different functions. Customer service is more prompt than any other system I've worked with (which is at least 7). They are professional and effective in responding to procedural questions or simple, known problems. For complex questions, it may take several attempts at contacting them, and the initial contact is almost always unhelpful. BTW, the number of items in our library with e-resources is around 1.17 million. The number above is approximately our physical collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are only a short distance after implementation (3 months) and therefore cannot properly assess normal running conditions or compare support with the previous year. It also makes it difficult to assess the functionality as we are still bedding in as well as waiting for some functionality to be released. Overall we feel the company has a good approach working directly with libraries to plan development. They worked hard to complete our implementation largely on time and was flexible to our needs during implementation. There were areas that could have been improved. We're just measuring up the system now and determining which issues we can resolve within configuration, which are planned to be released and which we will have to push. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Why would you spend a lot of money on profit driven software when you can obtain a product like OCLC used widely around the world which has resulted from a user community. In addition a lot of time is saved through reuse and the ability to turn items on quickly in the knowledge base. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Is the items in library's collection for hard copy items, or do you want to include electronic resource titles also? (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

Development team does not keep support team informed of all changes, so they are not always able to answer questions until they have done their own testing. Release notes frequently do not include all changes. Functionalities are sometimes changed without notice during releases, and requests that they be restored are treated as enhancement requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Product generally works well, especially group circulation functionality (WMS). However, we're concerned with recurrent issues that need re-reporting. Support is responsive, but doesn't always explain root causes of issues. Vendor has a tendency to place priority on functionality timelines instead of finishing the stated functionality. We question the extent of research or priority on end-user behavior by vendor in designing their discovery UX. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

OCLC WMS has streamlined our cataloging. Discovery with OCLC has improved since our migration in 2017. OCLC is continuing to improve the product all the time, including adding ways of accessing peer-reviewed, open access content using Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

WMS give weight to popularity in its search results. As a specialized library, often the correct search result does not show up on the first page of results - even when there is an exact match. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our library has not yet purchased the Report Designer product which would let us design reports. We are not satisfied with the reports we do have. The product is definitely limited without the additional module. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

WMS is a great system for cataloging. Circulation and Discovery need to be improved. The system is slow, with considerable lag time. We've worked with the vendor to improve and have seen some small improvements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are generally satisfied with Worldcat Discovery but the frequent changes and the negative feedback from other customers is unsettling. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

In January 2019 the [...] Library has switched to a new Interlibrary loan (ILL/document delivery) management system called Tipasa, which is built on the OCLC WorldShare technology platform and is entirely cloud-based. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC WMS meets our basic cataloging needs. It does not provide enough customized repoprts. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I'm confused by the above stat. Do you want just print items? Print +eBooks? Physical items? What do you mean? (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Integration and maintenance amongst different vendors for the "overall" patron search experience (OCLC for ILS, EBSCO for Discovery and Bibliotheca for hardware) is becoming increasingly difficult due to technical issues and requirements. Coordination between these vendors and library/IT personnel is becoming increasingly vital to resolve issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are generally satisfied with the back end of OCLC WMS, but we are still rather disappointed with the functionality of Worldshare Discovery. They are continuing to improve it, but it's taken a lot of customer complaints to get it going in the right direction. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our print collection is steadily declining. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

note on above collection size data: 45k is the number of physical items in our collection; the number of collection items in our ILS is 450k due to e-texts that are fully cataloged (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am very pleased to have migrated from ExLibris Voyager to OCLC Worldshare Management Services. It has enabled my library to better manage e-resources, integrate and increase interlibrary loans, and save money on OCLC bibliographic services. We also discontinued using EBSCO Discovery Service after OCLC WMS was implemented. There was no point in having two discovery services and WorldCat Discovery is easier to manage and less intimidating from the user perspective. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)