Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Library.Solution


2019 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction35 2 1 3 14 5 10 77.297
ILS Functionality35 1 1 1 1 4 10 12 5 87.067
Print Functionality34 1 3 3 5 10 12 97.658
Electronic Functionality31 1 3 1 3 5 6 7 5 86.487
Company Satisfaction35 2 1 1 2 7 10 12 97.498
Support Satisfaction33 3 2 9 8 11 97.588
Support Improvement33 2 3 11 3 2 2 10 56.396
Company Loyalty35 2 1 2 3 8 5 14 97.268
Open Source Interest33 12 4 1 3 5 5 1 1 1 02.522

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS36 12.78%
Considering new Interface36 00.00%
System Installed on time?36 3391.67%

Average Collection size: 175929

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00014
[3] 100,001-250,00011
[4] 250,001-1,000,0005
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010


Statistics according to type and size categories

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

Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS886.99 95.5630506.9697.220117.180
ILSFunctionality886.86 95.7830506.7897.330116.820
PrintFunctionality877.38 96.4430497.4596.890117.270
ElectronicFunctionality876.41 84.6330506.4097.110116.450
SatisfactionCustomerSupport887.35 96.4430507.2897.440117.550
CompanyLoyalty866.66 84.7530506.5697.670117.000



2018 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction88 1 1 2 2 3 4 11 23 24 17 86.997
ILS Functionality88 1 3 2 5 4 10 29 18 16 76.867
Print Functionality87 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 20 26 26 87.388
Electronic Functionality87 1 2 2 5 7 8 11 17 22 12 86.417
Company Satisfaction87 1 2 1 4 2 3 12 18 19 25 97.068
Support Satisfaction88 1 1 2 3 1 7 6 12 21 34 97.358
Support Improvement86 1 2 3 8 17 6 16 13 20 96.537
Company Loyalty86 6 1 1 3 3 5 9 19 14 25 96.667
Open Source Interest86 26 8 10 6 9 5 6 6 2 8 03.172

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS89 1921.35%
Considering new Interface89 22.25%
System Installed on time?89 8191.01%

Average Collection size: 157721

TypeCount
Public62
Academic12
School11
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,0005
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction115 1 5 2 10 7 14 18 27 31 96.938
ILS Functionality115 1 2 3 8 10 11 24 38 18 86.927
Print Functionality114 2 1 1 6 3 7 11 16 31 36 97.188
Electronic Functionality112 6 3 10 5 7 8 12 19 29 13 85.897
Company Satisfaction114 2 1 3 8 4 9 15 36 36 87.338
Support Satisfaction115 1 2 1 9 4 8 14 27 49 97.548
Support Improvement113 2 5 2 7 24 13 15 23 22 56.477
Company Loyalty114 7 2 3 3 7 10 7 15 22 38 96.678
Open Source Interest115 44 12 14 3 13 9 8 6 1 5 02.512

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS115 3026.09%
Considering new Interface115 119.57%
System Installed on time?115 10994.78%

Average Collection size: 128919

TypeCount
Public85
Academic12
School12
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00067
[3] 100,001-250,00032
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction95 1 1 2 1 4 5 11 17 31 22 87.168
ILS Functionality95 1 2 7 3 11 20 33 18 87.198
Print Functionality95 2 1 1 5 3 8 21 28 26 87.288
Electronic Functionality94 1 3 2 3 5 15 11 27 17 10 76.307
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 2 8 7 15 32 27 87.448
Support Satisfaction92 1 2 3 6 8 14 19 39 97.588
Support Improvement93 1 11 27 7 16 16 15 56.417
Company Loyalty90 3 3 2 3 8 8 5 10 17 31 96.708
Open Source Interest93 30 10 12 8 10 7 5 2 6 3 02.712

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS97 1212.37%
Considering new Interface97 99.28%
System Installed on time?97 8991.75%

Average Collection size: 135641

TypeCount
Public66
Academic13
School12
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 2 2 2 3 5 10 25 26 27 97.218
ILS Functionality102 1 3 3 2 5 14 16 37 21 87.168
Print Functionality102 1 1 4 3 9 13 38 33 87.678
Electronic Functionality99 1 3 6 13 8 24 26 18 86.897
Company Satisfaction102 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 19 33 35 97.588
Support Satisfaction102 3 2 4 2 5 13 35 38 97.668
Support Improvement99 3 1 1 7 20 9 13 18 27 96.727
Company Loyalty101 5 1 2 2 5 8 7 11 31 29 86.928
Open Source Interest102 35 12 12 3 9 9 7 4 1 10 02.882

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 1918.27%
Considering new Interface104 76.73%
System Installed on time?104 9894.23%

Average Collection size: 180187

TypeCount
Public72
Academic11
School13
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 4 7 10 26 25 18 77.177
ILS Functionality91 2 4 3 5 10 22 32 13 87.037
Print Functionality91 5 5 9 25 22 25 77.428
Electronic Functionality90 1 3 6 4 3 20 19 24 10 86.577
Company Satisfaction91 2 1 3 4 8 21 26 26 87.438
Support Satisfaction91 1 1 3 2 3 6 14 28 33 97.588
Support Improvement87 1 1 1 5 21 5 15 20 18 56.767
Company Loyalty90 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 12 23 32 97.198
Open Source Interest90 33 17 13 1 11 4 6 2 3 02.081

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 99.68%
Considering new Interface93 66.45%
System Installed on time?93 8692.47%

Average Collection size: 140836

TypeCount
Public65
Academic11
School12
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00011
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction69 1 1 2 2 6 8 16 13 20 97.107
ILS Functionality69 2 1 4 7 8 11 23 13 87.018
Print Functionality69 2 1 3 5 7 12 20 19 87.208
Electronic Functionality68 5 1 1 2 8 8 8 12 14 9 85.977
Company Satisfaction69 1 2 3 4 6 11 24 18 87.338
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 7 7 11 13 28 97.568
Support Improvement66 1 1 3 18 7 6 12 18 56.807
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 1 6 10 6 10 27 97.008
Open Source Interest67 32 1 7 6 2 13 2 2 2 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS70 1014.29%
Considering new Interface70 34.29%
System Installed on time?70 6998.57%

Average Collection size: 156324

TypeCount
Public53
Academic4
School7
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00014
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 2 1 5 1 5 8 17 34 33 87.388
ILS Functionality105 2 1 2 5 3 8 24 36 24 87.268
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction105 1 1 1 5 4 9 10 33 41 97.648
Support Satisfaction106 1 1 2 2 3 9 10 34 44 97.748
Support Improvement105 1 1 2 26 8 17 17 33 97.047
Company Loyalty106 10 4 2 4 5 9 13 13 46 96.778
Open Source Interest105 37 11 11 11 8 10 6 4 7 02.662

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS110 1412.73%
Considering new Interface110 65.45%
System Installed on time?110 10393.64%

Average Collection size: 162637

TypeCount
Public85
Academic10
School10
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction130 2 3 3 5 12 33 31 41 97.468
ILS Functionality128 3 4 9 11 31 46 24 87.328
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 1 2 10 11 24 34 46 97.578
Support Satisfaction130 2 4 3 8 11 20 34 48 97.528
Support Improvement129 3 2 3 8 22 9 21 24 37 96.837
Company Loyalty129 5 4 4 4 3 9 7 12 25 56 97.068
Open Source Interest128 37 11 20 12 10 11 10 8 2 7 02.952

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS132 2015.15%
Considering new Interface132 75.30%
System Installed on time?132 12796.21%

Average Collection size: 135321

TypeCount
Public100
Academic11
School8
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00070
[3] 100,001-250,00040
[4] 250,001-1,000,00014
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction103 1 7 6 6 7 21 31 24 87.098
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction102 1 4 1 4 9 4 21 29 29 87.238
Support Satisfaction103 2 2 2 7 2 11 18 19 40 97.328
Support Improvement100 4 1 5 3 4 24 10 11 22 16 56.136
Company Loyalty103 6 3 8 1 1 7 3 12 16 46 96.848
Open Source Interest102 34 9 15 10 3 14 4 4 1 8 02.772

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS105 1514.29%
Considering new Interface105 87.62%
System Installed on time?105 9388.57%

Average Collection size: 99085

TypeCount
Public80
Academic10
School10
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,0007
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction110 1 2 4 3 6 4 45 26 19 77.067
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction110 1 2 6 4 2 7 25 33 30 87.278
Support Satisfaction110 1 1 4 3 1 5 12 20 31 32 97.238
Support Improvement104 3 2 2 3 6 26 6 19 20 17 56.267
Company Loyalty109 4 3 6 1 1 12 4 15 22 41 96.948
Open Source Interest110 24 17 11 7 9 16 9 8 4 5 03.303

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS115 108.70%
Considering new Interface115 108.70%
System Installed on time?115 9784.35%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction30 3 2 4 6 7 8 97.208
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction30 2 5 1 3 11 8 87.338
Support Satisfaction29 1 2 1 3 8 8 6 77.077
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty30 1 1 4 2 3 5 14 97.508
Open Source Interest30 7 5 4 3 5 3 2 1 03.002

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS30 13.33%
Considering new Interface30 310.00%
System Installed on time?30 30100.00%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 4 4 15 12 8 77.167
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction66 1 1 6 6 3 16 18 15 87.058
Support Satisfaction66 1 1 1 2 2 8 4 16 15 16 76.927
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty65 2 3 2 2 1 5 6 7 20 17 86.778
Open Source Interest64 13 9 10 5 6 12 2 4 3 03.003

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS66 812.12%
Considering new Interface66 69.09%
System Installed on time?66 11.52%




2019 : gen: 7.29 company 7.49 loyalty 7.26 support 7.58

2018 : gen: 6.99 company 7.06 loyalty 6.66 support 7.35

2017 : gen: 6.93 company 7.33 loyalty 6.67 support 7.54

2016 : gen: 7.16 company 7.44 loyalty 6.70 support 7.58

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.58 loyalty 6.92 support 7.66

2014 : gen: 7.17 company 7.43 loyalty 7.19 support 7.58

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.33 loyalty 7.00 support 7.56

2012 : gen: 7.38 company 7.64 loyalty 6.77 support 7.74

2011 : gen: 7.46 company 7.57 loyalty 7.06 support 7.52

2010 : gen: 7.09 company 7.23 loyalty 6.84 support 7.32

2009 : gen: 7.06 company 7.27 loyalty 6.94 support 7.23

2008 : gen: 7.20 company 7.33 loyalty 7.50 support 7.07

2007 : gen: 7.16 company 7.05 loyalty 6.77 support 6.92

Comments (survey2018)

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)

ILS