Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Alma


2019 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction172 2 4 2 19 32 59 42 12 76.797
ILS Functionality173 2 2 5 14 23 67 40 20 76.987
Print Functionality172 1 1 1 11 13 22 59 45 19 76.927
Electronic Functionality170 3 2 5 27 25 52 45 11 76.717
Company Satisfaction173 3 3 4 7 18 43 51 28 16 76.497
Support Satisfaction172 6 7 7 16 24 43 41 16 12 65.856
Support Improvement169 2 9 3 12 25 50 20 21 13 14 55.315
Company Loyalty171 1 2 2 1 10 24 20 46 34 31 76.807
Open Source Interest173 67 25 19 17 13 13 10 2 4 3 02.101

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS175 52.86%
Considering new Interface175 42.29%
System Installed on time?175 15990.86%

Average Collection size: 1191850

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00036
[3] 100,001-250,00029
[4] 250,001-1,000,00056
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00041
[6] over 10,000,0013


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2018 results according to the type and size of the library.

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



2018 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction311 2 3 4 14 34 63 118 69 4 76.557
ILS Functionality310 1 1 5 14 33 57 105 81 13 76.717
Print Functionality307 1 2 5 11 24 48 99 87 30 76.947
Electronic Functionality305 2 2 6 6 14 41 46 96 79 13 76.527
Company Satisfaction310 1 5 6 13 19 35 57 91 70 13 76.337
Support Satisfaction308 2 8 13 17 20 48 70 68 50 12 65.876
Support Improvement295 3 5 7 9 38 112 42 33 30 16 55.515
Company Loyalty305 8 5 8 6 17 33 37 71 65 55 76.587
Open Source Interest304 104 51 49 22 27 20 16 8 4 3 02.091

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS317 103.15%
Considering new Interface317 92.84%
System Installed on time?317 29091.48%

Average Collection size: 1442753

TypeCount
Public0
Academic261
School0
Consortium10
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,000101
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00087
[6] over 10,000,0016



2017 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction253 4 5 8 27 50 107 43 9 76.587
ILS Functionality252 3 3 7 20 45 102 61 11 76.807
Print Functionality253 3 4 6 23 31 91 75 20 76.967
Electronic Functionality253 2 3 6 7 23 60 72 65 15 76.677
Company Satisfaction252 1 4 3 2 14 39 43 73 55 18 76.507
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 5 8 23 45 53 60 37 14 76.046
Support Improvement247 1 4 6 9 31 83 38 33 21 21 55.665
Company Loyalty249 5 5 5 5 11 29 25 57 57 50 76.727
Open Source Interest249 87 52 42 22 17 15 7 3 1 3 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS260 31.15%
Considering new Interface260 41.54%
System Installed on time?260 24293.08%

Average Collection size: 1178078

TypeCount
Public0
Academic225
School0
Consortium7
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,00088
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00073
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction157 2 2 2 3 5 18 28 54 33 10 76.537
ILS Functionality157 1 1 1 7 7 12 22 51 44 11 76.707
Print Functionality157 1 1 1 4 7 13 24 42 47 17 86.857
Electronic Functionality153 3 1 2 8 12 28 37 44 18 86.807
Company Satisfaction157 3 1 2 7 8 15 28 41 38 14 76.487
Support Satisfaction156 2 2 4 10 10 13 26 46 32 11 76.277
Support Improvement152 1 2 5 5 17 45 21 23 17 16 55.846
Company Loyalty155 4 3 1 2 8 16 15 34 32 40 96.887
Open Source Interest155 72 29 24 9 9 7 1 3 1 01.361

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 42.48%
Considering new Interface161 53.11%
System Installed on time?161 15193.79%

Average Collection size: 1375159

TypeCount
Public0
Academic138
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 1 1 4 3 9 22 26 21 76.377
ILS Functionality87 1 2 2 3 9 23 29 17 1 76.377
Print Functionality86 1 1 1 4 6 17 28 22 6 76.747
Electronic Functionality86 1 2 2 3 18 30 22 8 76.887
Company Satisfaction87 1 1 1 3 1 12 15 23 22 8 76.617
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 3 2 5 15 11 28 14 7 76.267
Support Improvement84 2 2 1 10 20 10 15 16 8 56.066
Company Loyalty83 1 2 3 6 6 5 20 21 19 86.947
Open Source Interest85 32 17 14 7 5 3 3 4 01.731

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS88 22.27%
Considering new Interface88 11.14%
System Installed on time?88 8090.91%

Average Collection size: 1924546

TypeCount
Public0
Academic74
School0
Consortium2
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00032
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00033
[6] over 10,000,0012



2014 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 2 1 1 4 11 17 10 76.437
ILS Functionality46 1 1 3 6 17 13 4 1 66.096
Print Functionality46 1 3 4 14 9 13 2 66.597
Electronic Functionality46 1 1 1 4 12 10 14 3 86.747
Company Satisfaction46 2 1 3 2 5 19 9 5 76.677
Support Satisfaction46 1 2 1 4 11 20 5 2 76.337
Support Improvement44 1 2 1 4 9 8 5 9 5 56.096
Company Loyalty45 1 1 2 6 2 11 13 9 86.967
Open Source Interest44 18 7 11 2 3 3 01.411

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 24.35%
Considering new Interface46 12.17%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 2463832

TypeCount
Public0
Academic40
School0
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00016
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction15 1 1 2 1 6 4 76.207
ILS Functionality15 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 65.336
Print Functionality15 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 86.407
Electronic Functionality15 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.007
Company Satisfaction15 1 1 1 7 3 2 76.807
Support Satisfaction15 1 3 1 5 4 1 76.737
Support Improvement15 1 5 1 4 4 56.337
Company Loyalty16 1 1 4 6 4 87.318
Open Source Interest17 9 2 1 1 3 1 01.880

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS18 316.67%
Considering new Interface18 15.56%
System Installed on time?18 1794.44%

Average Collection size: 1468604

TypeCount
Public0
Academic16
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 2 2 1 44.864
ILS Functionality7 1 1 1 1 3 74.865
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 1 2 2 87.148
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.147
Support Improvement7 1 1 2 2 1 76.867
Company Loyalty7 2 1 4 96.439
Open Source Interest7 3 1 1 1 1 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 225.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 1033620

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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


1 Responses for Alma in 2011

0 Responses for Alma in 2010

0 Responses for Alma in 2009

0 Responses for Alma in 2008

0 Responses for Alma in 2007

2019 : gen: 6.79 company 6.49 loyalty 6.80 support 5.85

2018 : gen: 6.55 company 6.33 loyalty 6.58 support 5.87

2017 : gen: 6.58 company 6.50 loyalty 6.72 support 6.04

2016 : gen: 6.53 company 6.48 loyalty 6.88 support 6.27

2015 : gen: 6.37 company 6.61 loyalty 6.94 support 6.26

2014 : gen: 6.43 company 6.67 loyalty 6.96 support 6.33

2013 : gen: 6.20 company 6.80 loyalty 7.31 support 6.73

2012 : gen: 4.86 company 7.14 loyalty 6.43 support 6.14

Comments (survey2018)

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)

ILS