| 2019 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 154 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 30 | 52 | 34 | 17 | 7 | 6.85 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 152 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 31 | 46 | 33 | 18 | 7 | 6.76 | 7 | ||
| Print Functionality | 154 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 19 | 38 | 44 | 29 | 8 | 7.10 | 7 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 153 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 22 | 31 | 31 | 42 | 18 | 8 | 6.77 | 7 | ||
| Company Satisfaction | 154 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 18 | 43 | 49 | 24 | 8 | 7.06 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 154 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 20 | 32 | 47 | 34 | 8 | 7.11 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 152 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 40 | 19 | 32 | 25 | 17 | 5 | 6.31 | 6 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 151 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 28 | 39 | 38 | 8 | 6.81 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 152 | 48 | 19 | 24 | 10 | 17 | 14 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 2.51 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 155 | 7 | 4.52% |
| Considering new Interface | 155 | 10 | 6.45% |
| System Installed on time? | 155 | 143 | 92.26% |
| Average Collection size: | 420553 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 6 |
| Academic | 120 |
| School | 3 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 9 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 5 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 55 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 38 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 39 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 13 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
The following table presents the 2018 results according to the type and size of the library.
| WorldShare Management Services | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 109 | 6.56 | 48 | 6.96 | 26 | 5.81 | 8 | 5.50 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 109 | 6.51 | 48 | 6.96 | 26 | 6.08 | 8 | 4.75 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 109 | 7.10 | 48 | 7.48 | 26 | 6.54 | 8 | 6.38 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 109 | 6.49 | 48 | 6.69 | 26 | 6.15 | 8 | 6.38 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 106 | 6.69 | 46 | 6.96 | 26 | 5.92 | 8 | 6.38 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 107 | 6.45 | 47 | 7.04 | 26 | 5.50 | 8 | 5.38 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| 2018 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 109 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 21 | 36 | 22 | 9 | 7 | 6.56 | 7 | |
| ILS Functionality | 109 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 14 | 22 | 29 | 20 | 12 | 7 | 6.51 | 7 |
| Print Functionality | 109 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 19 | 24 | 33 | 20 | 8 | 7.10 | 7 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 109 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 18 | 37 | 19 | 11 | 7 | 6.49 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 107 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 29 | 29 | 16 | 7 | 6.83 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 106 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 15 | 31 | 24 | 14 | 7 | 6.69 | 7 | |
| Support Improvement | 106 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 32 | 11 | 18 | 16 | 7 | 5 | 5.88 | 5 | |
| Company Loyalty | 107 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 19 | 23 | 22 | 8 | 6.45 | 7 |
| Open Source Interest | 108 | 33 | 18 | 14 | 7 | 7 | 14 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2.51 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 109 | 10 | 9.17% |
| Considering new Interface | 109 | 9 | 8.26% |
| System Installed on time? | 109 | 103 | 94.50% |
| Average Collection size: | 384087 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 4 |
| Academic | 83 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 5 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 40 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 29 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 27 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 9 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2017 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 140 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 34 | 45 | 23 | 12 | 7 | 6.49 | 7 |
| ILS Functionality | 140 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 25 | 38 | 36 | 9 | 7 | 6.50 | 7 |
| Print Functionality | 138 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 11 | 34 | 42 | 26 | 8 | 7.06 | 7 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 137 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 27 | 38 | 30 | 14 | 7 | 6.53 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 139 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 26 | 36 | 28 | 24 | 7 | 6.79 | 7 |
| Support Satisfaction | 140 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 23 | 35 | 33 | 22 | 7 | 6.74 | 7 |
| Support Improvement | 137 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 32 | 24 | 18 | 23 | 14 | 5 | 5.99 | 6 | |
| Company Loyalty | 136 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 19 | 12 | 26 | 26 | 32 | 9 | 6.49 | 7 |
| Open Source Interest | 139 | 54 | 18 | 21 | 10 | 10 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 2.14 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 142 | 10 | 7.04% |
| Considering new Interface | 142 | 9 | 6.34% |
| System Installed on time? | 142 | 127 | 89.44% |
| Average Collection size: | 367340 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 4 |
| Academic | 111 |
| School | 2 |
| Consortium | 2 |
| Special | 5 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 49 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 34 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 43 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 10 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2016 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 133 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 20 | 40 | 33 | 16 | 7 | 6.70 | 7 |
| ILS Functionality | 133 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 18 | 43 | 34 | 10 | 7 | 6.55 | 7 |
| Print Functionality | 134 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 20 | 30 | 50 | 21 | 8 | 7.25 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 132 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 35 | 38 | 9 | 8 | 6.43 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 134 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 25 | 43 | 26 | 8 | 7.04 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 133 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 17 | 29 | 43 | 24 | 8 | 6.99 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 127 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 29 | 11 | 17 | 23 | 31 | 9 | 6.61 | 7 | |
| Company Loyalty | 132 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 7 | 19 | 32 | 43 | 9 | 6.91 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 131 | 55 | 24 | 21 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1.76 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 134 | 8 | 5.97% |
| Considering new Interface | 134 | 8 | 5.97% |
| System Installed on time? | 134 | 126 | 94.03% |
| Average Collection size: | 352782 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 4 |
| Academic | 102 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 5 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 49 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 34 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 39 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 8 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2015 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 94 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 28 | 30 | 9 | 8 | 6.94 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 94 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 19 | 23 | 20 | 9 | 7 | 6.43 | 7 | |
| Print Functionality | 94 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 14 | 24 | 29 | 16 | 8 | 7.17 | 7 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 93 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 15 | 20 | 29 | 7 | 8 | 6.58 | 7 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 94 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 20 | 34 | 19 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 93 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 14 | 17 | 31 | 18 | 8 | 7.08 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 89 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 18 | 14 | 16 | 14 | 15 | 5 | 6.42 | 7 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 92 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 17 | 22 | 30 | 9 | 7.13 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 92 | 45 | 17 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1.51 | 1 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 95 | 3 | 3.16% |
| Considering new Interface | 95 | 4 | 4.21% |
| System Installed on time? | 95 | 89 | 93.68% |
| Average Collection size: | 424304 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 2 |
| Academic | 75 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 3 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 24 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 31 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 22 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 10 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2014 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 72 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 28 | 22 | 4 | 7 | 6.88 | 7 | |
| ILS Functionality | 71 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 6.51 | 7 | ||
| Print Functionality | 70 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 15 | 33 | 7 | 8 | 7.21 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 70 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 20 | 23 | 7 | 8 | 6.93 | 7 | ||
| Company Satisfaction | 71 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 15 | 34 | 11 | 8 | 7.39 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 71 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 19 | 18 | 20 | 9 | 7.44 | 8 | |||
| Support Improvement | 69 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 9 | 14 | 17 | 12 | 8 | 6.86 | 7 | |||
| Company Loyalty | 73 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 15 | 23 | 25 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 71 | 36 | 15 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1.28 | 0 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 74 | 3 | 4.05% |
| Considering new Interface | 74 | 6 | 8.11% |
| System Installed on time? | 74 | 66 | 89.19% |
| Average Collection size: | 444490 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 4 |
| Academic | 56 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 1 |
| Special | 3 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 24 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 18 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 13 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 8 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2013 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 31 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6.77 | 7 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 31 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 5.81 | 6 | ||
| Print Functionality | 30 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6.80 | 7 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 31 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6.68 | 7 | ||
| Company Satisfaction | 30 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 7.37 | 8 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 31 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7.00 | 7 | |||
| Support Improvement | 31 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 6.77 | 7 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 30 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 9 | 7.33 | 8 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 30 | 15 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1.70 | 1 | |||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 32 | 1 | 3.13% |
| Considering new Interface | 32 | 1 | 3.13% |
| System Installed on time? | 32 | 24 | 75.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 260399 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 2 |
| Academic | 25 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 3 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 5 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 13 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2012 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 21 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 6.38 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 21 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 5.48 | 6 | ||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 21 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 6.76 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 21 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 6.62 | 7 | |||
| Support Improvement | 20 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 6.70 | 7 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 21 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 6.95 | 8 | ||||
| Open Source Interest | 21 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.52 | 2 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 22 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 22 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 22 | 17 | 77.27% |
| Average Collection size: | 316875 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 0 |
| Academic | 21 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 6 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 9 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2011 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: WorldShare Management Services | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 10 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 7.10 | 7 | ||||||
| ILS Functionality | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5.20 | 5 | ||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 8.20 | 9 | ||||||
| Support Satisfaction | 10 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 8.20 | 9 | ||||||
| Support Improvement | 9 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 7.56 | 8 | ||||||
| Company Loyalty | 10 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 8.00 | 9 | ||||||
| Open Source Interest | 10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0.70 | 1 | |||||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 10 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 10 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 10 | 9 | 90.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 392232 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 0 |
| Academic | 9 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 0 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 2 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2019 : gen: 6.85 company 7.06 loyalty 6.81 support 7.11
2018 : gen: 6.56 company 6.83 loyalty 6.45 support 6.69
2017 : gen: 6.49 company 6.79 loyalty 6.49 support 6.74
2016 : gen: 6.70 company 7.04 loyalty 6.91 support 6.99
2015 : gen: 6.94 company 7.31 loyalty 7.13 support 7.08
2014 : gen: 6.88 company 7.39 loyalty 7.59 support 7.44
2013 : gen: 6.77 company 7.37 loyalty 7.33 support 7.00
2012 : gen: 6.38 company 6.76 loyalty 6.95 support 6.62
2011 : gen: 7.10 company 8.20 loyalty 8.00 support 8.20
Collection count now includes electronic titles (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have a very mixed reaction to the system. Most of us in technical services are struggling, because we have gone from a very sophisticated system to a system that is less flexible, and is less feature rich. Reference and instruction seem to be much happier with the system. The upside for everyone is that the switch was part of joining the [...] consortium, which is truly dedicated to deep collaboration, and gives us a real voice to OCLC. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We migrated to WMS this summer. Mostly happy with it, support, etc. but still a few minor 'bugs' to that seem specific to us which OCLC is working on. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Number in collection includes physical material and eBooks. OCLC continually updates and enhances the ILS with new features. Unfortunately, over the course of the past year, we have experienced an increase in downtime and lags with the system that OCLC identified as system degradation. In order to combat this problem, they have implemented system repair work several times. Their work in this area has decreased the number of downtime occurrences. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The majority of problems relating to our ILS comes from staff working with each of the modules. We were an early adopter of Tipasa, making the decision to move from ILLIAD, after being told by OCLC that ILLIAD was going away and Tipasa would be fully integrated into WMS. After nearly two years that has not happened, we recently learned that the larger Tipasa sites are considering abandoning Tipasa and moving back to ILLIAD. Our ILL staff are seriously considering making the same move until Tipasa is fully integrated into WMS. As far as the public interface a large number of complaints comes from users who assume that a "View Online" link is to an ebook. In a majority of the instances it turns out to be a 856 link to the publisher's website in the Marc Record. To address this problem require edits to the Marc Record by our Catalogers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The reserves module needs improvement (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
While the system functions well, it needs a lot of hands on attention at the library - hard to keep up with all the changes/improvements when the library is small and understaffed. In fact, 18 months after implementation/migration, there are still elements we have not implemented or really gotten the hang of. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
My cataloging time is decreased for copy-cataloged items, and very easy for those needing original cataloging. Circulation is a vast improvement over Koha's set-up. Great trainer, very responsive support staff at OCLC. Set-up and preparation of the collection went smoothly, for the most part. We're likely to add Prospector in the future (2019) to assist with our resource-sharing needs, as we now have a lot of medical and health-allied materials and courses. I do not know what we are looking at in the realm of open source, or if we are. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Because WMS is not removed from OCLC the way that other true ILSes are, there are limited options as far as creating local edits to bibliographic records. Currently, there are also limited options for customizing the Discovery interface, although those are being rolled out soon. The reporting function is also limited unless you subscribe for an additional fee to Report Designer, which we do not. There is the possibility to perform more advanced functions in all of the areas I listed using OCLC's APIs, but that requires some programming knowledge and someone who has the time to devote to a project that one could argue should just be a functionality more readily available in WMS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
While there will always be problems with design and performance, we appreciate OCLC's ongoing commitment to continuous improvement in the user experience on both the staff and patron sides. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
FTE 5,500 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The discovery interface is not the best but it does the best in the given circumstances. EBSCO discovery system may be a better choice but due to budgetary constraints, we will continue using the WorldCat Discovery interface. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
There are features that we grew accustomed to in our previous ILS that are not yet implemented in our new ILS. Many of these come from the foundational design differences between the products. The flexibility of the old added to its complexity; the simplicity of the new translates into some limitations. However, our new vendor has exhibited more interest in improving their product than our previous vendor demonstrated in pursuing us to migrate to their next-gen ILS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
OCLC as a community usually feels transparent and collaborative. Its nonprofit and cooperative nature help support an environment that more consistently puts community needs first. The system lacks some important functionality, but system development is happening at a brisk pace and the enhancement process is conducted in a manner that generally feels responsive rather than opaque. Put simply, WMS for me wins the "most improved" award. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We moved to WMS because we simply could not affor our previous ILS (Sierra). While this move saved us the money we anticipated, its functionality is far less robust than advertized. To complicate matters, the migration to WMS was nothing short of a nightmare. User support leaves much to be desired. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I appreciate OCLC's cooperative and nonprofit nature. It is more responsive to librarian's needs and concerns. They have created products with incredible versatility. WMS allows analysis to a level and extent far beyond what I've seen elsewhere. The customization abilities allow us to tailor reports and forms to our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Quite a bit of functionality improvement in the last year. Pleased that the company takes its users' suggestions for new features seriously. Some features will only be available in optional modules, but these are an expense a smaller library cannot justify. The Discovery module is definitely improving with useful new features. Overall, system is easy to configure and has good integration among its modules. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
This has been a good choice for us. The discovery interface is a big imporvement over our previous ILS. We do not have many staff and this product has not required as much staff administration time as our previous ILS did. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
There are worse vendors. On a plus, the WMS knowledge base is integrated with the catalog. OCLC provided a cost-affordable solution, though we have concerns about price increases. Support cannot help with in-depth questions, such as a recent one involving EZProxy. Improvements to the system are incremental, if at all. Public searching functionality is primitive -- adequate for undergraduates, but not researchers. Staff functionality is _heavily_ siloed, which seems to mirror development. Does anyone at OCLC talk to others outside of their work department? Like other vendors, OCLC develops for the current trend, and seems to have forgotten the code or how to support older technologies like EZProxy, or even how to search or print call numbers. On a plus, WMS is great for small libraries who never had an online system, or had separate systems for different functions. Customer service is more prompt than any other system I've worked with (which is at least 7). They are professional and effective in responding to procedural questions or simple, known problems. For complex questions, it may take several attempts at contacting them, and the initial contact is almost always unhelpful. BTW, the number of items in our library with e-resources is around 1.17 million. The number above is approximately our physical collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are only a short distance after implementation (3 months) and therefore cannot properly assess normal running conditions or compare support with the previous year. It also makes it difficult to assess the functionality as we are still bedding in as well as waiting for some functionality to be released. Overall we feel the company has a good approach working directly with libraries to plan development. They worked hard to complete our implementation largely on time and was flexible to our needs during implementation. There were areas that could have been improved. We're just measuring up the system now and determining which issues we can resolve within configuration, which are planned to be released and which we will have to push. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Why would you spend a lot of money on profit driven software when you can obtain a product like OCLC used widely around the world which has resulted from a user community. In addition a lot of time is saved through reuse and the ability to turn items on quickly in the knowledge base. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Is the items in library's collection for hard copy items, or do you want to include electronic resource titles also? (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)
Development team does not keep support team informed of all changes, so they are not always able to answer questions until they have done their own testing. Release notes frequently do not include all changes. Functionalities are sometimes changed without notice during releases, and requests that they be restored are treated as enhancement requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Product generally works well, especially group circulation functionality (WMS). However, we're concerned with recurrent issues that need re-reporting. Support is responsive, but doesn't always explain root causes of issues. Vendor has a tendency to place priority on functionality timelines instead of finishing the stated functionality. We question the extent of research or priority on end-user behavior by vendor in designing their discovery UX. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
OCLC WMS has streamlined our cataloging. Discovery with OCLC has improved since our migration in 2017. OCLC is continuing to improve the product all the time, including adding ways of accessing peer-reviewed, open access content using Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
WMS give weight to popularity in its search results. As a specialized library, often the correct search result does not show up on the first page of results - even when there is an exact match. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our library has not yet purchased the Report Designer product which would let us design reports. We are not satisfied with the reports we do have. The product is definitely limited without the additional module. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
WMS is a great system for cataloging. Circulation and Discovery need to be improved. The system is slow, with considerable lag time. We've worked with the vendor to improve and have seen some small improvements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are generally satisfied with Worldcat Discovery but the frequent changes and the negative feedback from other customers is unsettling. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
In January 2019 the [...] Library has switched to a new Interlibrary loan (ILL/document delivery) management system called Tipasa, which is built on the OCLC WorldShare technology platform and is entirely cloud-based. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
OCLC WMS meets our basic cataloging needs. It does not provide enough customized repoprts. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I'm confused by the above stat. Do you want just print items? Print +eBooks? Physical items? What do you mean? (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Integration and maintenance amongst different vendors for the "overall" patron search experience (OCLC for ILS, EBSCO for Discovery and Bibliotheca for hardware) is becoming increasingly difficult due to technical issues and requirements. Coordination between these vendors and library/IT personnel is becoming increasingly vital to resolve issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are generally satisfied with the back end of OCLC WMS, but we are still rather disappointed with the functionality of Worldshare Discovery. They are continuing to improve it, but it's taken a lot of customer complaints to get it going in the right direction. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our print collection is steadily declining. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
note on above collection size data: 45k is the number of physical items in our collection; the number of collection items in our ILS is 450k due to e-texts that are fully cataloged (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am very pleased to have migrated from ExLibris Voyager to OCLC Worldshare Management Services. It has enabled my library to better manage e-resources, integrate and increase interlibrary loans, and save money on OCLC bibliographic services. We also discontinued using EBSCO Discovery Service after OCLC WMS was implemented. There was no point in having two discovery services and WorldCat Discovery is easier to manage and less intimidating from the user perspective. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
|
|
|