Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Polaris


2019 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 2 3 3 9 21 30 19 87.418
ILS Functionality86 2 3 2 12 21 28 18 87.368
Print Functionality85 1 2 8 12 34 28 87.848
Electronic Functionality85 2 4 6 9 6 8 24 15 11 76.207
Company Satisfaction86 3 2 2 4 9 5 24 22 15 76.787
Support Satisfaction85 2 2 4 2 5 9 13 25 23 87.098
Support Improvement83 2 2 3 9 25 5 9 13 15 56.106
Company Loyalty83 4 1 3 2 3 8 6 14 22 20 86.698
Open Source Interest83 22 11 16 7 7 11 2 2 2 3 02.602

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS90 66.67%
Considering new Interface90 88.89%
System Installed on time?90 8190.00%

Average Collection size: 320781

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00035
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[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.

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



2018 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction258 1 2 1 4 3 11 20 77 86 53 87.398
ILS Functionality256 2 1 4 3 11 22 69 99 45 87.408
Print Functionality252 4 1 4 6 12 46 121 58 87.678
Electronic Functionality253 8 4 4 6 12 29 45 59 52 34 76.437
Company Satisfaction252 5 4 3 13 8 28 35 57 61 38 86.597
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 3 7 15 19 28 54 62 57 86.947
Support Improvement247 8 3 9 6 26 79 30 27 30 29 55.705
Company Loyalty247 10 2 7 9 11 34 19 49 57 49 86.527
Open Source Interest248 69 31 36 22 29 32 12 6 4 7 02.642

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS270 228.15%
Considering new Interface270 269.63%
System Installed on time?270 24791.48%

Average Collection size: 427048

TypeCount
Public243
Academic9
School0
Consortium17
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00020
[2] 10,001-100,00099
[3] 100,001-250,00050
[4] 250,001-1,000,00058
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction263 1 4 1 7 14 31 73 87 45 87.258
ILS Functionality261 2 6 4 9 21 85 93 41 87.348
Print Functionality263 1 1 2 2 3 9 14 50 104 77 87.718
Electronic Functionality257 4 2 14 6 15 24 43 57 59 33 86.447
Company Satisfaction259 3 2 4 5 14 34 32 63 63 39 76.717
Support Satisfaction248 2 3 4 8 11 15 30 69 61 45 76.907
Support Improvement244 11 2 6 12 24 69 23 35 29 33 55.755
Company Loyalty255 9 5 3 7 20 23 29 47 54 58 96.607
Open Source Interest256 90 28 38 23 26 22 12 7 4 6 02.322

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS267 207.49%
Considering new Interface267 3011.24%
System Installed on time?267 24792.51%

Average Collection size: 418065

TypeCount
Public228
Academic11
School3
Consortium21
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00011
[2] 10,001-100,000119
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00051
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00030
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction216 1 3 3 2 6 29 60 69 43 87.358
ILS Functionality218 2 3 2 4 11 26 61 69 40 87.258
Print Functionality213 1 2 2 6 14 50 76 62 87.728
Electronic Functionality212 9 1 5 8 13 20 34 59 35 28 76.307
Company Satisfaction213 1 8 3 9 22 29 53 51 37 76.847
Support Satisfaction212 1 1 3 2 14 18 37 41 47 48 96.967
Support Improvement205 7 3 8 7 26 62 17 37 18 20 55.565
Company Loyalty213 8 1 5 17 22 22 40 51 47 86.757
Open Source Interest215 92 30 28 15 20 15 6 5 2 2 01.821

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS219 177.76%
Considering new Interface219 2310.50%
System Installed on time?219 20593.61%

Average Collection size: 453385

TypeCount
Public180
Academic17
School4
Consortium15
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 4 2 9 24 69 61 34 77.247
ILS Functionality207 1 2 4 1 13 22 50 82 32 87.308
Print Functionality207 3 1 1 3 1 10 8 36 94 50 87.578
Electronic Functionality206 3 3 4 15 7 31 35 52 33 23 76.237
Company Satisfaction206 1 2 3 7 7 29 34 43 54 26 86.677
Support Satisfaction204 2 3 5 13 25 27 30 56 43 86.907
Support Improvement195 7 3 11 18 20 58 13 27 18 20 55.335
Company Loyalty198 5 3 5 9 12 18 21 33 50 42 86.637
Open Source Interest204 82 27 27 16 17 15 9 4 1 6 02.041

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS215 177.91%
Considering new Interface215 2612.09%
System Installed on time?215 19791.63%

Average Collection size: 459670

TypeCount
Public184
Academic11
School0
Consortium18
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00097
[3] 100,001-250,00046
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00025
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction169 1 1 1 8 19 43 59 37 87.518
ILS Functionality169 1 1 1 1 1 6 20 46 59 33 87.408
Print Functionality167 3 1 1 1 5 9 33 64 50 87.668
Electronic Functionality164 5 3 7 12 22 34 34 33 14 66.206
Company Satisfaction168 1 1 1 6 9 25 46 44 35 77.237
Support Satisfaction165 1 4 4 6 2 14 41 49 44 87.368
Support Improvement161 4 3 5 7 20 48 16 22 20 16 55.645
Company Loyalty167 6 1 2 9 9 20 29 43 48 97.118
Open Source Interest161 63 22 16 13 16 14 6 8 2 1 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 95.29%
Considering new Interface170 169.41%
System Installed on time?170 16496.47%

Average Collection size: 570334

TypeCount
Public143
Academic10
School0
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00045
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction138 1 9 10 34 49 35 87.638
ILS Functionality138 3 6 12 36 51 30 87.548
Print Functionality136 2 2 2 8 7 19 52 44 87.658
Electronic Functionality136 3 3 3 6 8 19 22 22 36 14 86.287
Company Satisfaction136 1 1 11 7 27 46 43 87.708
Support Satisfaction137 3 2 11 9 30 41 41 87.548
Support Improvement135 1 1 4 2 32 15 22 27 31 56.837
Company Loyalty137 2 1 3 3 8 8 23 29 60 97.628
Open Source Interest134 60 18 20 8 5 13 3 5 2 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS143 10.70%
Considering new Interface143 1510.49%
System Installed on time?143 13292.31%

Average Collection size: 532870

TypeCount
Public118
Academic11
School1
Consortium11
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00018
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00016
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 2 4 8 29 64 45 87.878
ILS Functionality152 1 1 4 8 54 51 33 77.628
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction151 2 2 1 6 9 17 60 54 87.838
Support Satisfaction152 1 3 2 5 11 44 44 42 77.528
Support Improvement144 2 3 8 50 19 17 16 29 56.376
Company Loyalty152 1 1 2 14 3 21 24 86 97.979
Open Source Interest149 50 19 23 22 12 10 8 3 1 1 02.112

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 21.24%
Considering new Interface161 63.73%
System Installed on time?161 15093.17%

Average Collection size: 411671

TypeCount
Public140
Academic8
School1
Consortium9
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00043
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 4 1 3 3 19 37 35 87.778
ILS Functionality102 1 4 8 20 46 23 87.718
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 1 2 3 2 4 15 36 37 97.808
Support Satisfaction100 2 2 4 2 6 22 29 33 97.558
Support Improvement97 3 1 2 2 6 23 10 12 18 20 56.377
Company Loyalty100 1 2 2 2 2 2 9 28 52 97.959
Open Source Interest99 46 12 20 8 2 6 3 1 1 01.481

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS106 21.89%
Considering new Interface106 87.55%
System Installed on time?106 10195.28%

Average Collection size: 541249

TypeCount
Public91
Academic3
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,00022
[4] 250,001-1,000,00020
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 1 3 2 1 3 17 42 32 87.778
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 2 2 6 3 14 32 41 97.838
Support Satisfaction101 1 4 1 4 3 18 30 40 97.748
Support Improvement100 1 1 2 3 17 11 6 33 26 87.118
Company Loyalty100 1 1 1 2 4 6 8 25 52 97.929
Open Source Interest100 41 13 17 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 01.981

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 65.77%
Considering new Interface104 109.62%
System Installed on time?104 9995.19%

Average Collection size: 356804

TypeCount
Public92
Academic6
School0
Consortium6
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00033
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 2 1 1 13 52 21 87.798
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction92 1 1 1 4 4 6 48 27 87.808
Support Satisfaction91 2 1 2 1 1 17 45 22 87.688
Support Improvement87 3 1 1 3 13 12 8 29 17 86.838
Company Loyalty91 3 1 1 1 5 2 5 37 36 87.688
Open Source Interest90 27 21 13 2 6 10 4 3 3 1 02.281

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS92 66.52%
Considering new Interface92 66.52%
System Installed on time?92 8592.39%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction51 2 3 4 5 21 16 87.738
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction51 4 3 2 5 15 22 97.768
Support Satisfaction51 1 4 4 3 8 11 20 97.418
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty52 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 25 97.338
Open Source Interest51 15 13 6 3 2 7 1 1 3 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS53 59.43%
Considering new Interface53 35.66%
System Installed on time?53 4890.57%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction59 1 1 1 5 12 18 21 97.788
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction64 1 1 3 2 11 20 26 97.898
Support Satisfaction64 1 3 2 8 17 33 98.119
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty63 2 2 2 3 5 7 18 24 97.498
Open Source Interest62 20 11 11 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 02.272

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS64 11.56%
Considering new Interface64 23.13%
System Installed on time?64 11.56%




2019 : gen: 7.41 company 6.78 loyalty 6.69 support 7.09

2018 : gen: 7.39 company 6.59 loyalty 6.52 support 6.94

2017 : gen: 7.25 company 6.71 loyalty 6.60 support 6.90

2016 : gen: 7.35 company 6.84 loyalty 6.75 support 6.96

2015 : gen: 7.24 company 6.67 loyalty 6.63 support 6.90

2014 : gen: 7.51 company 7.23 loyalty 7.11 support 7.36

2013 : gen: 7.63 company 7.70 loyalty 7.62 support 7.54

2012 : gen: 7.87 company 7.83 loyalty 7.97 support 7.52

2011 : gen: 7.77 company 7.80 loyalty 7.95 support 7.55

2010 : gen: 7.77 company 7.83 loyalty 7.92 support 7.74

2009 : gen: 7.79 company 7.80 loyalty 7.68 support 7.68

2008 : gen: 7.73 company 7.76 loyalty 7.33 support 7.41

2007 : gen: 7.78 company 7.89 loyalty 7.49 support 8.11

Comments (survey2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ILS