Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4736.77 675.94396.82126.251726.99756.97227.09137.46256.80
ILSFunctionality4716.72 676.09396.56125.581716.99756.88226.77137.38256.76
PrintFunctionality4717.13 676.84397.51126.831727.01757.21217.43137.69247.71
ElectronicFunctionality4605.65 664.42385.08114.821686.12735.96206.40135.85256.16
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4627.08 656.83387.18126.751666.89747.36227.55137.69257.68
CompanyLoyalty4596.40 665.17375.81124.921676.55727.06227.09127.08237.39



2018 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction473 5 4 5 15 18 34 65 157 118 52 76.777
ILS Functionality471 3 5 7 16 16 46 76 125 122 55 76.727
Print Functionality471 8 4 8 6 10 28 51 104 162 90 87.138
Electronic Functionality460 22 16 25 23 38 50 79 108 58 41 75.656
Company Satisfaction468 4 6 11 15 18 33 56 137 120 68 76.797
Support Satisfaction462 2 7 13 8 19 34 39 103 122 115 87.088
Support Improvement448 9 1 11 14 37 137 49 52 66 72 56.106
Company Loyalty459 18 9 20 17 27 41 47 95 88 97 96.407
Open Source Interest460 158 56 58 23 43 43 31 24 5 19 02.592

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS481 8918.50%
Considering new Interface481 449.15%
System Installed on time?481 43490.23%

Average Collection size: 552666

TypeCount
Public283
Academic122
School13
Consortium25
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000173
[3] 100,001-250,000104
[4] 250,001-1,000,000108
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00053
[6] over 10,000,0012



2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction531 5 5 13 14 23 39 89 154 122 67 76.697
ILS Functionality531 1 7 15 13 24 45 92 150 130 54 76.647
Print Functionality523 4 3 12 8 15 30 54 124 177 96 87.148
Electronic Functionality525 14 21 34 30 41 76 87 109 78 35 75.616
Company Satisfaction523 4 8 10 13 24 54 73 116 133 88 86.777
Support Satisfaction518 3 7 6 16 17 38 53 100 160 118 87.118
Support Improvement512 5 1 9 8 45 137 61 83 89 74 56.316
Company Loyalty516 31 5 23 13 25 51 56 107 103 102 76.347
Open Source Interest517 160 69 65 33 68 51 27 21 7 16 02.582

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS536 10719.96%
Considering new Interface536 519.51%
System Installed on time?536 48690.67%

Average Collection size: 633322

TypeCount
Public301
Academic141
School16
Consortium32
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00023
[2] 10,001-100,000179
[3] 100,001-250,000116
[4] 250,001-1,000,000122
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00066
[6] over 10,000,0013



2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction431 3 4 10 12 17 31 58 126 117 53 76.797
ILS Functionality431 2 2 9 13 21 31 54 132 111 56 76.827
Print Functionality426 6 1 4 8 11 17 31 104 153 91 87.328
Electronic Functionality422 16 12 24 22 38 45 78 80 73 34 75.746
Company Satisfaction427 6 4 11 10 21 32 49 110 111 73 86.817
Support Satisfaction418 4 4 5 10 17 29 44 91 111 103 87.118
Support Improvement410 5 4 5 8 44 101 53 50 67 73 56.296
Company Loyalty425 17 11 7 11 16 46 41 84 90 102 96.647
Open Source Interest418 140 57 54 32 46 38 20 11 6 14 02.412

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS436 8118.58%
Considering new Interface436 4911.24%
System Installed on time?436 40292.20%

Average Collection size: 2753248

TypeCount
Public235
Academic132
School14
Consortium25
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00016
[2] 10,001-100,000151
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00096
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00059
[6] over 10,000,0015



2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction437 5 6 12 8 20 37 58 131 113 47 76.667
ILS Functionality436 8 15 12 18 41 54 132 116 40 76.627
Print Functionality437 4 5 4 5 17 22 36 123 144 77 87.168
Electronic Functionality432 12 20 23 27 35 62 61 89 69 34 75.666
Company Satisfaction432 5 9 13 15 18 30 51 109 119 63 86.697
Support Satisfaction427 5 4 14 12 15 33 36 101 123 84 86.927
Support Improvement420 8 7 3 5 46 108 42 71 69 61 56.206
Company Loyalty433 23 14 10 9 23 44 49 84 97 80 86.357
Open Source Interest426 153 61 59 27 40 37 15 15 5 14 02.271

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS460 8217.83%
Considering new Interface460 4710.22%
System Installed on time?460 40287.39%

Average Collection size: 653631

TypeCount
Public256
Academic116
School22
Consortium27
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,000168
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00098
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00051
[6] over 10,000,0011



2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction354 1 4 9 16 14 29 55 124 76 26 76.537
ILS Functionality355 1 2 11 13 16 29 66 104 85 28 76.567
Print Functionality351 3 2 4 4 11 13 43 81 125 65 87.248
Electronic Functionality347 10 19 28 34 17 45 63 72 41 18 75.316
Company Satisfaction352 9 12 17 19 26 57 98 80 34 76.437
Support Satisfaction348 2 4 7 11 13 29 50 86 89 57 86.827
Support Improvement339 2 3 2 9 38 96 29 49 53 58 56.286
Company Loyalty343 13 12 13 17 22 38 43 56 68 61 86.157
Open Source Interest346 108 61 49 26 31 25 18 6 8 14 02.392

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS361 7621.05%
Considering new Interface361 5214.40%
System Installed on time?361 32289.20%

Average Collection size: 707313

TypeCount
Public182
Academic111
School7
Consortium19
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000118
[3] 100,001-250,00081
[4] 250,001-1,000,00075
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0012



2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction315 3 3 8 14 18 23 36 99 74 37 76.617
ILS Functionality314 2 2 7 20 10 20 52 88 72 41 76.657
Print Functionality314 3 1 3 4 9 20 35 76 99 64 87.218
Electronic Functionality307 7 17 21 29 24 46 52 50 36 25 65.366
Company Satisfaction313 4 9 10 16 14 17 43 81 77 42 76.517
Support Satisfaction312 4 3 6 8 16 26 28 77 79 65 86.917
Support Improvement307 4 2 7 5 17 83 23 57 50 59 56.467
Company Loyalty312 21 8 10 9 17 41 26 56 61 63 96.197
Open Source Interest304 90 34 49 22 27 40 13 13 7 9 02.672

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS324 6620.37%
Considering new Interface324 5817.90%
System Installed on time?324 29290.12%

Average Collection size: 835498

TypeCount
Public139
Academic87
School29
Consortium26
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00024
[2] 10,001-100,00080
[3] 100,001-250,00064
[4] 250,001-1,000,00067
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00041
[6] over 10,000,0012



2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction380 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 122 72 30 76.377
ILS Functionality380 1 1 5 24 24 41 47 114 94 29 76.527
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction378 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 98 71 32 76.217
Support Satisfaction378 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 102 80 50 76.487
Support Improvement371 3 3 6 16 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.236
Company Loyalty376 30 11 22 18 25 48 33 76 54 59 75.707
Open Source Interest374 97 44 47 35 35 42 28 19 13 14 03.012

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS393 7920.10%
Considering new Interface393 7619.34%
System Installed on time?393 34888.55%

Average Collection size: 644460

TypeCount
Public206
Academic114
School4
Consortium21
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000125
[3] 100,001-250,00093
[4] 250,001-1,000,00080
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00054
[6] over 10,000,0012



2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction326 5 6 9 11 21 37 61 102 57 17 76.187
ILS Functionality320 1 2 7 18 18 30 63 93 69 19 76.397
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction326 6 7 19 20 24 35 58 83 53 21 75.886
Support Satisfaction324 4 10 11 14 18 44 54 72 68 29 76.177
Support Improvement323 5 10 10 12 28 81 37 60 48 32 55.876
Company Loyalty323 23 16 16 13 31 44 40 54 55 31 85.476
Open Source Interest318 63 32 48 21 34 45 18 27 12 18 03.483

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS333 7622.82%
Considering new Interface333 8826.43%
System Installed on time?333 30390.99%

Average Collection size: 570393

TypeCount
Public151
Academic116
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00084
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00040
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction271 3 5 9 12 19 37 41 77 50 18 76.157
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 8 8 17 11 26 37 54 57 39 14 75.636
Support Satisfaction269 8 7 15 20 23 32 50 56 39 19 75.676
Support Improvement271 11 7 16 28 21 87 26 26 26 23 55.155
Company Loyalty270 18 15 10 24 29 34 40 40 32 28 65.266
Open Source Interest269 64 26 30 17 19 31 29 19 14 20 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS282 5720.21%
Considering new Interface282 8128.72%
System Installed on time?282 24285.82%

Average Collection size: 580366

TypeCount
Public142
Academic88
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00085
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00028
[6] over 10,000,0011



2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction304 3 5 6 9 16 62 56 96 44 7 76.066
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction303 5 9 27 23 22 56 48 79 29 5 75.346
Support Satisfaction303 3 12 30 23 17 54 45 66 41 12 75.446
Support Improvement292 7 11 19 29 23 89 35 39 30 10 55.095
Company Loyalty301 32 14 12 14 23 67 31 49 43 16 55.065
Open Source Interest300 53 34 26 25 30 40 25 20 23 24 03.904

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS310 4915.81%
Considering new Interface310 8527.42%
System Installed on time?310 26184.19%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction233 4 7 11 19 16 35 37 64 32 8 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction234 9 9 16 31 28 23 43 43 26 6 65.056
Support Satisfaction233 12 14 23 18 21 36 39 38 23 9 64.915
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty233 21 13 19 18 17 36 20 43 34 12 74.955
Open Source Interest231 36 23 21 24 17 37 12 23 16 22 54.114

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS234 5423.08%
Considering new Interface234 6929.49%
System Installed on time?234 21491.45%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction200 4 1 5 10 6 23 29 64 43 15 76.417
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction284 5 8 20 23 27 43 47 61 38 12 75.506
Support Satisfaction282 6 10 13 27 37 33 42 64 34 16 75.486
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty279 25 10 12 9 16 59 31 42 36 39 55.526
Open Source Interest281 54 41 36 32 17 36 21 14 9 21 03.353

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS288 4214.58%
Considering new Interface288 6020.83%
System Installed on time?288 10.35%




2018 : gen: 6.77 company 6.79 loyalty 6.40 support 7.08

2017 : gen: 6.69 company 6.77 loyalty 6.34 support 7.11

2016 : gen: 6.79 company 6.81 loyalty 6.64 support 7.11

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48

Comments (survey2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We migrated to Ex Libris Alma in December 2018. Considering that this survey is for 2018, I responded with my opinion on our old system. If you would like to have my opinion on Alma, I would be glad to do that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our university closed [...] a few years ago. Please remove it from your record. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)

Front line staff find the product unwieldy in its inability to open multiple screens or access a variety of information simultaneously. Reports are also practically illegible with the assortment of program coding surrounding the actual data being sought. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Wish the web based (BlueCloud Circulation) was ready for prime time! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Have worked with SirsiDynix for 18 years and have been very happy with them. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in wait and see mode for FOLIO and to see what other products might emerge. We are in a contract with Sirsi that ends after 2020 and may switch then. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I primarily follow the guidelines and suggestions of our consortium. My personal frustration is with the reports part of the Sirsy/Dinyx program. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

not sure of certain questions as the CEO is on leave and I do not have access to all information. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Collection size is an estimate, inventory planned for 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

This is one library within a regional public library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

There's a quote generally attributed to Churchill which goes along the lines of "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I think that this mindset probably applies to experiences with just about any ILS system after a migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library really doesn't get involved in the choosing of an ILS so I guessed at many of your questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Responses are based on our new implementation of SirsiDynix six months ago. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

This system works in the background and is implemented by the [...]. I have no imput or knowledge of how they implemented it prior to my time as the Librarian (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The number in the previous question includes all record (physical and digital). E-book maintenance is a real problem for small libraries using EBSCO E-books with OCLC and Symphony. OCLC has addition, deletion, and update files. Symphony cannot do the update files because there is no way to find a matching number. If the 856s are updated, then I cannot update those changes. Those with API experience say that they cannot add a MARC field on which to match either. The matching options are hard-baked into the system programming. That means that some unknown percentage of EBSCO E-books are inaccessible from my catalog. I have spoken with OCLC, SirsiDynix, and EBSCO about this issue and it is going nowhere fast. I want to continue to provide E-book options from my catalog but cannot. I could delete every EBSCO E-book file but they would be out of the catalog. I prefer patrons to see all the options in EDS and our catalog. By comparison ProQuest Ebook Central only has additional and deletion files (no updates). This is a massive logistical and maintenance problem for smaller libraries across multiple vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The company has a good vision on BlueCloud but need to delivery it and transfer its vision to reality soon, particular for the functions for expending virtual services. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are migrating to Alma/Primo, to go live July 1, 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Support is very responsive to any issues we have. Assigned consultant aids us with our issues/questions on a monthly basis. We have had virtually no down time in our almost 4 years with SirsiDynix. Everyone there has been a pleasure to work with from system administrator viewpoint. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just migrated to a new system in November. Many of these scores are based on the new ILS and are hard to compare to the previous ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

My answers are pretty negative in regards to Sirsi since we bid for their new system ca. 2011 originally, that they had to scrap since they ran into major problems during the development. That is why, they gave us their older system Symphony instead, that is not a relational database. So, there is a lot of duplicate data entry. - We were happier with their older system Horizon, though. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall we are satisfied with SirsiDynix customer support. The Workflows client is bulky and an extremely dated user interface that staff greatly dislike. This aside, we have few issues with the ILS as a whole. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My consortium communicates directly with Customer Support, so I don't have a valid response for those questions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are happy with Symphony. The only issue we have is the increasing cost of the service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our library has the system hosted at the vendor's secure site and use the vendor's management rather than having our own system administrator on staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a k-12 institution, with a limited 2 person staff dedicated to libraru automation and discovery, we have a hard time keeping up with development and implementation of SD services. Customization that takes a lot of time, management, or upkeep, is rarely an option for us. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have not had any troubles with our current ILS as far as performance goes but because we are a small library, the costs are a major factor in which ILS products we consider. Since we are nearing the end of our current contract, we are in the beginning stages of researching to find a product and/or service that will meet our needs in a similar fashion at a lower cost. Thus far, the only service we have researched is ByWater Solutions Koha based on a recommendation from a nearby library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

No comment at this time (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Questions to which I responded with a rating of 5, would be more appropriate and best answered by the [...] Library System, which handles these areas of ILS support for our library, which is a member. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sirsi has developed a service model over the past few years and now have people in place to make it effective. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

This past year we moved from WorldCat Discovery to EDS due to staff dissatisfaction with WCD and continuing disruptions to service affecting our students. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There is a National Consortium who act on our behalf. This has been invaluable to centralise the expertise that we would not be able to manage at a local level due to our limited resourcing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As part of a consortium we don't have direct interaction with the vendor so perceptions are based on the end product. Overall the product is stable with minimal disruiptions to service. The product meets the majority of our expectations with development and enhancements making required improvements. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The [..] LRC has had SirsiDynix for the past 20+ years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently using 3 different interfaces for circulation which can be a little confusing (Workflows client, SymphonyWeb, and BluecloudCirc) We are trying to utilize Sirsi's web based products but they are still in development and it looks like to will still be quite a while before they have full functionality. As an administrator there seem to be many different interfaces that you need to know to manage the system. On top of the 3 mentioned above there's Enterprise and E-Library for the public interface, Webservices, and Bluecloud Central. Also API for custom programming so I'm having difficulty getting other people up to speed on how to administer the system. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

On the whole we're very happy with our ILS. Their customer support is great and they are responsive to our needs. There are only two things we don't like about it. The first is that the staff UI seems very dated and many steps have to be taken by staff to accomplish simple tasks. We shouldn't have to open a whole series of windows to update a patron record, then check-out, check-in, renew, and place holds for that same patron. Once the patron record is open, we should be able to accomplish all of that with tabs within the record. Secondly, the reports REALLY need a better selection of functions for sorting the results. I should be able to sort by call number with spaces considered as part of the sort, instead of the sort ignoring them. I have to export the results to Excel and then sort them by hand for them to be remotely useful. The patron UI for the online catalog is better and patrons like it, though it goes down a lot. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix though dated has worked fine and we haven't had any problems with it. EDS though has been problematic as it doesn't work well with non-EBSCO databases. Due to budget constraints and EBSCO's refusal to negotiate better on pricing, we've moved from EBSCO databases to Gale and ProQuest ones that do not work in EDS. As a result, we were forced to look for a new discovery and in the process, figured we might as well limit the number of systems we have to run by also migrating from Sirsi. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Local SirsiDynix Support Team is excellent. Very reliable - delivers an outstanding customer service Negative: Delays in delivery of responsive web designed Enterprise catalog site solution that provides an optimal user experience. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

ILS