| 2019 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 56 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 | 18 | 15 | 8 | 7.55 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 56 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 16 | 17 | 9 | 7.63 | 8 | ||||
| Print Functionality | 56 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 20 | 24 | 9 | 8.00 | 8 | ||||
| Electronic Functionality | 52 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 12 | 11 | 7 | 6.85 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 56 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 14 | 21 | 9 | 7.77 | 8 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 55 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 14 | 26 | 9 | 7.96 | 8 | ||||
| Support Improvement | 55 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 5 | 6.69 | 7 | |||
| Company Loyalty | 53 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 11 | 24 | 9 | 7.58 | 8 | |||
| Open Source Interest | 55 | 19 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.42 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 57 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 57 | 2 | 3.51% |
| System Installed on time? | 57 | 55 | 96.49% |
| Average Collection size: | 99536 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 0 |
| Academic | 0 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 13 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 34 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
The following table presents the 2018 results according to the type and size of the library.
| Destiny | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 201 | 7.46 | 6 | 6.17 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.47 | 0 | 0 | 156 | 7.81 | 2 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 200 | 7.38 | 6 | 6.33 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.03 | 0 | 0 | 155 | 7.79 | 2 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 199 | 7.81 | 6 | 7.67 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.47 | 0 | 0 | 154 | 8.17 | 2 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 195 | 6.48 | 6 | 6.33 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 4.71 | 0 | 0 | 152 | 6.90 | 2 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 198 | 7.59 | 6 | 6.33 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.50 | 0 | 0 | 153 | 7.88 | 2 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 193 | 7.01 | 6 | 5.17 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 5.25 | 0 | 0 | 150 | 7.51 | 2 | |||||
| 2018 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 201 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 20 | 40 | 52 | 65 | 9 | 7.46 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 200 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 27 | 36 | 59 | 57 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 199 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 35 | 50 | 86 | 9 | 7.81 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 195 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 20 | 26 | 35 | 35 | 46 | 9 | 6.48 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 199 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 39 | 49 | 72 | 9 | 7.56 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 198 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 20 | 35 | 44 | 77 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 188 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 47 | 24 | 24 | 30 | 42 | 5 | 6.54 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 193 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 14 | 19 | 22 | 32 | 77 | 9 | 7.01 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 191 | 77 | 17 | 18 | 11 | 23 | 19 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 2.46 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 204 | 17 | 8.33% |
| Considering new Interface | 204 | 8 | 3.92% |
| System Installed on time? | 204 | 192 | 94.12% |
| Average Collection size: | 41067 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 31 |
| Academic | 6 |
| School | 158 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 40 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 125 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 4 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 1 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2017 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 312 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 13 | 34 | 63 | 104 | 82 | 8 | 7.46 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 310 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 42 | 56 | 114 | 65 | 8 | 7.29 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 309 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 21 | 52 | 103 | 119 | 9 | 7.88 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 303 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 16 | 35 | 40 | 55 | 68 | 60 | 8 | 6.56 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 309 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 13 | 20 | 55 | 101 | 102 | 9 | 7.62 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 304 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 24 | 56 | 79 | 117 | 9 | 7.64 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 295 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 28 | 95 | 19 | 38 | 39 | 65 | 5 | 6.38 | 6 |
| Company Loyalty | 301 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 23 | 15 | 48 | 73 | 110 | 9 | 7.30 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 300 | 115 | 37 | 36 | 19 | 30 | 29 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 2.26 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 313 | 12 | 3.83% |
| Considering new Interface | 313 | 10 | 3.19% |
| System Installed on time? | 313 | 288 | 92.01% |
| Average Collection size: | 61607 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 30 |
| Academic | 8 |
| School | 267 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 65 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 202 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 3 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2016 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 611 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 14 | 26 | 45 | 137 | 200 | 174 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 602 | 3 | 11 | 5 | 13 | 29 | 58 | 119 | 211 | 153 | 8 | 7.45 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 609 | 3 | 6 | 15 | 17 | 26 | 92 | 215 | 235 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 574 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 18 | 31 | 69 | 75 | 105 | 123 | 129 | 9 | 6.75 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 610 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 18 | 26 | 43 | 110 | 200 | 198 | 8 | 7.62 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 594 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 22 | 28 | 32 | 92 | 164 | 231 | 9 | 7.57 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 573 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 57 | 149 | 49 | 68 | 104 | 126 | 5 | 6.53 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 590 | 20 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 30 | 42 | 37 | 73 | 150 | 219 | 9 | 7.24 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 568 | 216 | 57 | 54 | 36 | 78 | 61 | 26 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 0 | 2.40 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 621 | 21 | 3.38% |
| Considering new Interface | 621 | 25 | 4.03% |
| System Installed on time? | 621 | 562 | 90.50% |
| Average Collection size: | 44857 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 61 |
| Academic | 8 |
| School | 539 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 118 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 360 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 7 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2015 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 131 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 24 | 40 | 34 | 8 | 7.37 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 131 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 17 | 28 | 39 | 30 | 8 | 7.28 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 129 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 27 | 33 | 47 | 9 | 7.62 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 124 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 18 | 16 | 28 | 13 | 22 | 7 | 6.11 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 129 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 31 | 39 | 34 | 8 | 7.49 | 8 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 129 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 13 | 23 | 33 | 45 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | |||
| Support Improvement | 118 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 33 | 9 | 21 | 12 | 26 | 5 | 6.28 | 7 | |
| Company Loyalty | 126 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 8 | 18 | 25 | 48 | 9 | 7.10 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 123 | 59 | 9 | 16 | 3 | 17 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1.93 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 137 | 11 | 8.03% |
| Considering new Interface | 137 | 5 | 3.65% |
| System Installed on time? | 137 | 122 | 89.05% |
| Average Collection size: | 183623 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 45 |
| Academic | 4 |
| School | 84 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 15 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 98 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 5 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2014 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 120 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 23 | 41 | 29 | 8 | 7.22 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 120 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 24 | 42 | 29 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 120 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 19 | 43 | 40 | 8 | 7.63 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 115 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 15 | 25 | 28 | 12 | 8 | 6.12 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 119 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 20 | 39 | 37 | 8 | 7.43 | 8 |
| Support Satisfaction | 118 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 18 | 31 | 44 | 9 | 7.43 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 113 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 41 | 8 | 13 | 11 | 21 | 5 | 6.00 | 5 | |
| Company Loyalty | 117 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 16 | 22 | 46 | 9 | 6.94 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 112 | 48 | 15 | 12 | 3 | 13 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2.09 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 122 | 13 | 10.66% |
| Considering new Interface | 122 | 5 | 4.10% |
| System Installed on time? | 122 | 113 | 92.62% |
| Average Collection size: | 155840 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 33 |
| Academic | 4 |
| School | 81 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 19 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 80 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2013 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 363 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 30 | 80 | 133 | 104 | 8 | 7.75 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 363 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 15 | 22 | 93 | 139 | 85 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 362 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 13 | 58 | 120 | 162 | 9 | 8.13 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 333 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 42 | 49 | 83 | 79 | 52 | 7 | 6.77 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 362 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 18 | 67 | 133 | 125 | 8 | 7.84 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 360 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 21 | 61 | 101 | 149 | 9 | 7.80 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 346 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 121 | 25 | 36 | 71 | 67 | 5 | 6.48 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 355 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 19 | 18 | 48 | 89 | 163 | 9 | 7.73 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 346 | 154 | 33 | 28 | 20 | 25 | 60 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2.11 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 368 | 5 | 1.36% |
| Considering new Interface | 368 | 4 | 1.09% |
| System Installed on time? | 368 | 337 | 91.58% |
| Average Collection size: | 37635 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 26 |
| Academic | 2 |
| School | 335 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 61 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 248 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2012 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 48 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 8 | 8 | 7.17 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 47 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 7 | 6.62 | 7 | |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 48 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 48 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 17 | 20 | 9 | 8.02 | 8 | ||||
| Support Improvement | 46 | 1 | 14 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 6.78 | 7 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 48 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 17 | 9 | 6.67 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 48 | 18 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.19 | 2 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 49 | 8 | 16.33% |
| Considering new Interface | 49 | 3 | 6.12% |
| System Installed on time? | 49 | 46 | 93.88% |
| Average Collection size: | 60496 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 36 |
| Academic | 3 |
| School | 10 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 5 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 40 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2011 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 37 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6.97 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 36 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6.64 | 7 | |
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 37 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7.24 | 7 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 37 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 7.24 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 35 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 6.17 | 5 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 37 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 9 | 6.46 | 7 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 37 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3.14 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 37 | 5 | 13.51% |
| Considering new Interface | 37 | 2 | 5.41% |
| System Installed on time? | 37 | 34 | 91.89% |
| Average Collection size: | 74155 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 22 |
| Academic | 1 |
| School | 14 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 5 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 25 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2010 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 8 | 6.65 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 23 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 6.35 | 7 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 6.57 | 7 | |
| Support Improvement | 23 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5.96 | 5 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 23 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 6.09 | 8 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 23 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3.04 | 2 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 23 | 2 | 8.70% |
| Considering new Interface | 23 | 1 | 4.35% |
| System Installed on time? | 23 | 22 | 95.65% |
| Average Collection size: | 20091 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 15 |
| Academic | 0 |
| School | 8 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 18 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2009 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7.40 | 8 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 7.53 | 8 | |||||
| Support Improvement | 14 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6.21 | 8 | |||||
| Company Loyalty | 15 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6.93 | 8 | ||||||
| Open Source Interest | 15 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2.53 | 1 | ||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 15 | 2 | 13.33% |
| Considering new Interface | 15 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 15 | 14 | 93.33% |
| 2008 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 7.13 | 8 | |||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 8.25 | 9 | |||||||
| Support Satisfaction | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | |||||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 7.25 | 8 | |||||
| Open Source Interest | 7 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4.14 | 4 | |||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 8 | 1 | 12.50% |
| Considering new Interface | 8 | 1 | 12.50% |
| System Installed on time? | 8 | 7 | 87.50% |
| 2007 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Destiny | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 7 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 7.14 | 8 | ||||||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | |||||
| Support Satisfaction | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 7.10 | 8 | |||||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 10 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7.00 | 7 | |||||
| Open Source Interest | 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4.10 | 5 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 10 | 2 | 20.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 10 | 1 | 10.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 10 | 1 | 10.00% |
2019 : gen: 7.55 company 7.77 loyalty 7.58 support 7.96
2018 : gen: 7.46 company 7.56 loyalty 7.01 support 7.59
2017 : gen: 7.46 company 7.62 loyalty 7.30 support 7.64
2016 : gen: 7.54 company 7.62 loyalty 7.24 support 7.57
2015 : gen: 7.37 company 7.49 loyalty 7.10 support 7.50
2014 : gen: 7.22 company 7.43 loyalty 6.94 support 7.43
2013 : gen: 7.75 company 7.84 loyalty 7.73 support 7.80
2012 : gen: 7.17 company 7.67 loyalty 6.67 support 8.02
2011 : gen: 6.97 company 7.24 loyalty 6.46 support 7.24
2010 : gen: 6.65 company 6.35 loyalty 6.09 support 6.57
2009 : gen: 7.20 company 7.40 loyalty 6.93 support 7.53
2008 : gen: 7.13 company 8.25 loyalty 7.25 support 7.38
2007 : gen: 7.14 company 7.20 loyalty 7.00 support 7.10
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)
|
|
|